Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 3

< November 2	November 4 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

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

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

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

Junior’s Cave, an online magazine located in the Coastal Georgia/Golden Isles and Port City of Brunswick, Georgia, was established in June 2005 by Isaac Joseph Davis Junior, Mikael Linder, Shannon Faust, and Todd Withrow as a mere concept of what they wanted to accomplish. During that time, they were accumulating ideas as to what shape they wanted the magazine to take. It was formally launched on the Internet on December 2005 and has been a great success since its conception. Isaac-Joseph, who was born on October 19, 1968 and grew up in the seventies, has been a resident of the Golden Isles Georgia area for about 20 years. He has worked in various positions in the Hospitality and Customer Service field for many years.

Currently, he is working at Coastal Georgia Community College as the new Program Academic Advisor in the TRIO Student Support Services Program, a program for Disadvantages Students. He also graduated with an Associate of Science and Associate of Applied Science from Coastal Georgia Community College in 1993 and a Bachelor of General Studies in Teacher Education from Armstrong Atlantic State University in 2004 and Master of Business Administration from Kaplan University in August 2007 of this year. He worked most recently for New Roads in Brunswick. He has been quoted as stating that his main goal is to "make Junior’s Cave Online Magazine online magazine as well as soon to be released sometime early Spring 2008 hard printed version a success".

One of his ultimate goals is to Become Secretary of Education for the United States of America.

Another original team member includes Mikael who is the magazine’s creative Web Designer. He has completely given JC Online Magazine its fantastic look. He resides in Sweden.

The magazine believes the strength of their project is that it is tapping into a market that is developing fast; online publication. More conventional printed publications are moving towards the online publication for the inexpensive method of producing materials.

The main purpose of the magazine is "online services of information". The magazine assumes a unique approach to reporting news, stories and information. The magazine engages its readers in the information that the writers, editors, and columnists present from an independent perspective. Simply put, they want their readers to feel like they are receiving stories, news, and information from a friend, family member or a co-worker.

Because this is their angle, the emphasis is put more on how stories that the magazine are presenting being perceived by the reader? The magazine is not trying to be the next Time Magazine or Newsweek or any other newsmagazine but their own identity; which is the online publication's best appeal. They are not appealing to the mass but rather a select group of readers who are looking for stories, news and information from a "friend". The main information, news, and stories come from spotlights on regional stories, new musicians, artists, filmmakers, authors, sports figures or any other rising new stars. In other words, they (the magazine) present information that normally will not appear on larger online publication that would be of interests to our readers such as local/regional happenings. The magazine is located at http://www.juniorscave.com.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by RHaworth. Non-admin closure. Deor 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid-Math-Class[edit]

Deleted earlier today under prod process. ~~Speedable per CSD G1~~ --Blanchardb 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not "an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content", it's clearly a new editor's attempt at an article on Euclid. I don't think there's any content in there that isn't in Euclid or Euclid's Elements, though. I have asked the creator to take a look at those articles and see if he can contribute to them rather than creating a new page. This one should be deleted. --Stormie 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormie. The title of the article suggests that this may be a posting of a paper written for a school assignment. Deor 13:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Also, it's not a G1 candidate, but it may be a G4 candidate. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States weather of 2007[edit]

The primary reason for this nomination is that the articles are not notable. Weather happens; that fact is amply covered in articles like Climate of Florida or Climate of North Dakota. For really dramatic weather events that deviate from the normal climate pattern, we have articles like Late-March 2007 Tornado Outbreak or 2007 Western North American heat wave (themselves of dubious encyclopedic calibre, but anyway). Second, the entries are necessarily subjective (mostly unreferenced too). For instance, ME, VT, NH, CT, RI, AK, HI, NM and OR are mentioned not at all in the 2007 article, while observations like "May was dry and an unseasonably warm" are presumably rather more mundane than the entirety of 2007 weather in those 9 states. Third and most troublingly, these two articles pose a dangerous slippery slope. Are we now committed to writing articles on every year in US weather from now on? Can we expect Czechoslovak weather of 1927, Angolan weather of 1982, Egyptian weather of 1564 BC and Imperial Roman weather of 37 AD coming down the pipeline eventually? I hope not, and I hope we can put a rightful stop to this misguided endeavour. Biruitorul 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because the same arguments apply:

Comment I have to say that I don't see a problem with the idea for such an article but rather with the fact that it lacks sources. I agree with your example about articles about weather from all ages, however if some people are willing to devote their time to create such articles they can go ahead I suppose. Who knows, maybe it can become a source for a researcher fifty years from now :) If the concensus is delete, count me as delete though - the article is on shaky ground. Baristarim 06:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete For dramatic weather changes or events listed in the article, it seems redundant to other articles like 2007 Western North American heat wave. For less dramatic event, they are not notable in any way. Some observations may even constitute OR. At any rate, the content here is not suitable to include in an encyclopedia. Period. Chris! _ct 06:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revision I agree with the arguments of redundancy and lack of notability; however, it seems like an article with a heading such as this would be an excellent place to link to the pre-existing articles on notable weather events within the given year, as well as a place to have some (cited) observations as to the general trends indicated by such notable events. More of a cross-reference index than a stand-alone article. Ncalvin 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there a WikiAlmanac to transwiki this to? 132.205.99.122 20:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of undefeated military commanders[edit]

Blatant, irredeemable original research. "Undefeated?" There are endless objections to this--what constitutes a defeat, what constitutes being in command, when should we and should we not take the absence of a historical record of defeats as positive evidence of undefeated status--and no solid secondary sources used, and I can't think of any that exist. Zap it. --Robth^Talk 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's original research, and there's no way to resolve that problem without deleting the article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a good idea without good sources. Baristarim 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doczilla 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JJL 23:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if your entire career occurred without a single conflict, you would be undefeated. 132.205.99.122 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arguments for keeping appear to have been refuted. Core desat 03:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths in The Sopranos series[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not notable, it is not verifiable, and it is indiscriminate in terms of plot detail and statistics. First of all, WP:N requires for a topic to establish notability through significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. The article is only supported by a Flash presentation by CBS News. The article simultaneously does not meet WP:V with the lack of secondary sources, which leads to WP:IINFO. In-universe information is supposed to be supplied to complement real-world context of the topic (and the topic cannot exist here due to lack of notability). Instead, there exist statistics without verifiable explanatory text at List of deaths in The Sopranos series#Statistics. I recognize that death is a common theme in The Sopranos, but this non-notable list of indiscriminate in-universe information gives no encyclopedic insight about this theme. A better approach would be to use academic studies of how the TV series has depicted death sequences, which would qualify as real-world context. This existing list does not warrant encyclopedic inclusion for this multitude of reasons. Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is now properly transcluded – the old discussion was transcluded before. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indiscriminate list; fancruft. Biruitorul 00:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not indiscriminate - the list has a clear focus. And it is obviously verifiable. And there's adequate notability and sourcing, like the CBS News coverage. Colonel Warden 00:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article only uses primary sources, the TV series itself, to cover the topic. There's a failure to use secondary sources, and there needs to be multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage of this topic. This hasn't been the case. In addition, there is no real-world context -- it's indiscriminate in that sense, having only plot information per WP:PLOT, and it has a blatant "Statistics" section. There is no encyclopedic support for such a list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of secondary material out there because deaths in the se ries are so significant. For example, Over the years The Sopranos has been known for its high body count. In honor of the series finale, take a look back at some memorable deaths..., Review of Psychology Of The Sopranos: Love, Death, Desire and Betrayal in America's Favorite Gangster Family in Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, Death on Sopranos..., Whacked Sopranos reflect... Colonel Warden 08:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I suggested in the previous AfD, a Death in The Sopranos prose article would be completely appropriate. That would definitely provide encyclopedic insight through the application of real-world context. Here, there is an indiscriminate compilation of plot detail, with no secondary sources used. In-universe information is supposed to complement verifiable content from reliable sources about the topic -- here, it's serving as the core content instead, with little to no real-world perspectives about any of these deaths except for the original research laden in the Statistics section. I understand that information may seem "cool" or "useful" to Sopranos fans as reflected in the last AfD, but Wikipedia articles need to fit the five pillars in providing encyclopedic content. If a reader unfamiliar with The Sopranos comes by, all he or she will find is a re-hashing of plot detail without real-world context to back it up. It seems that this kind of list would be far more suitable for a place like the Sopranos Wikia. My suggestion is to establish a Death in the Sopranos if the theme is so notable, and provide a link to the list of deaths at the Sopranos Wikia in the External links section. That way, encyclopedic coverage can be provided about the theme, and the list will be just an additional click away on a wikia that would embrace its content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:FICT, fails the general notability guideline as well. Fails WP:V, there is a lot of information uncited that isn't IU information, like for instance David Chase telling actors far in advance when they are going to die. "Aprile Curse"?? A lot of the "Statistics" section looks like original research to me. Also, Wikipedia isn't a substitute for watching the show. Knowing who died in a show is not relevant. Death on a show is not relevant without context. There is no context explaining why "death" on The Sopranoes is a relevant encyclopedic topic. You want to mention who dies, then put it in the plot section of the episode list. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is definitely indiscriminate information, and no real notability for this in-universe list. Crazysuit 06:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fancruft. Doczilla 08:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nom sums it up very nicely. Not notable and is OR. Nuke it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, for the characters who are notable enough to be mentioned in an existing article, it can say which episode they died in. For others... well, if they weren't notable enough for their lives to merit inclusion, why should their deaths? :-D Ombudstheman 22:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would be fine at The Sopranos and this is a reasonable way to keep that article manageable in size. JJL 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not indiscriminate; it's quite specific:list of deaths in a particular TV show. Personally I think it should be limited to on-screen deaths, and the Statistics section should go, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Labelling it "fancruft" is not a valid reason either. "Whacking" is obviously an integral part of anything to do with gangsters and the Sopranos is no different. It's perfectly reasonable to have an article on it. As has been pointed out above there are plenty of secondary sources available.Pawnkingthree 00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's indiscriminate in the sense that it's merely plot detail and statistics. Like I said, the secondary sources could be used to write a prose article about the theme of death in The Sopranos, but it doesn't warrant this indiscriminate list that has no real world context. Just because an act is a common occurrence in a TV series does not mean they all have to be listed -- this would mean ER should have a list of all the surgeries that took place in the show, that soap operas should list all the specific instances of backstabbing, that Star Wars films should list all the specific instances in which The Force was used. There are no secondary sources used for each little entry that keep this list from being an indiscriminate re-hashing of plot detail. Please read #2 at WP:PLOT -- "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series." A compilation of deaths in the overall plot of The Sopranos without any of the requisite encyclopedic insight qualifies as indiscriminate. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd support such an article only for a very notable series--such as this. One of the criteria for a list is useful, and this is certainly useful in keeping track of the plot and the characters. And it seems secondary sourcing has been found. If it were list of deaths in televisions series, then possibly one could validly say "indiscriminate"--not here, limited to one particular series. DGG (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A topic only needs to meet the notability criteria -- it doesn't matter if it's "very notable" compared to any other topic that meets the same criteria. Just because a TV series is popular doesn't mean it's OK to indiscriminately list plot detail as opposed to a deleting a similar list under a lesser-known TV series, provided that both of their general topics meet the notability criteria. Such a perspective fails to be neutral. Also, WP:USEFUL is not an argument, as a directory of New York phone numbers is useful, too -- the list still fails to provide verifiable content from reliable secondary sources to establish either the notability of this specific list or to provide real-world context per WP:PLOT -- it's still a re-hashing of plot detail, no matter whether this show is popular or not. If producers elaborated on their approach in deciding on the how and why of each character's death, that would be appropriate encyclopedic content. However, none of the listings provide any sort of out-of-universe information besides the episode in which the death occurred. Like I said before, this list can be transwiki'ed to the Sopranos Wikia due to the fans' policy-disregarding desire for such information. As I mentioned in my initial argument, the list fails to be notable, verifiable, or discriminate. The show's so-called popularity -- WP:WELIKEIT -- does not address the arguments I've put forth. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Blatant hoax. The evidence is convincing enough to delete this one early. Singu larity 06:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bobley[edit]

Blatant hoax about a non-existent MP / lecturer: zero Google hits for "Kenneth Bobley" and zero Google hits for "Ken Bobley". It would be astonishing, to say the least, if there was an MP who never had any mention recorded online at Hansard (whose online records start in 1988 and so would cover 7 years of his Parliamentary career) - see [1]. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up the other giveaway is that there is no constituency of 'Camden' – Camden Borough is split between Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) and Hampstead and Highgate (UK Parliament constituency), neither of whom had this individual as an MP between 1985 and 1995 as claimed. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. --Malcolmxl5 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Snigbrook 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear hoax for non-existant seat. Davewild 08:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Paradox[edit]

1 non-wiki ghit, which isn't about this group at all. No sources offered in article. Hoax? (Contested prod.) Fabrictramp 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if not a WP:HOAX then this clearly fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. --Malcolmxl5 23:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N MatthewYeager 00:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin School District 25[edit]

Family genealogy; non-notable, deleted. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, after researching, still unable to find anything to pass WP:N MatthewYeager 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-proclaimed WP:OR - "The information in this article was researched by Tony Molinaro, a former Benjamin District 25 School Board president. Sources include school records, old newspaper articles, U.S. Census Records, and U.S. Land Records." (Retrieved from Benjamin_School_District_25.) Bearian 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 paste text to Talk:Beowulf. Sandstein 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beowulf and danish mythology[edit]

A bit of someone's term paper; incorporate useful bits into Beowulf and delete. Neutrality^talk 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fuse useful info to Beowulf#Themes.2C_characters.2C_and_story. I suggest that the info be transported to Talk:Beowulf so maintainers of the Beowulf article can pick it clean of useful facts then discard the rest.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definitely not grounds for a separate article, but it seems that some of the information can be merged into the main Beowulf article. Calgary 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all--victor falk 06:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just delete it, nothing seems to be in there which would be of huge use to the Beowulf article. As Lenticel suggested, drop the whole text to the talk page to see if anyone there would be interested in the info contained in this article. Baristarim 06:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs more than 1 RS. Bearian 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge salvageable information to Beowulf. utcursch | talk 15:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2 and the other AFD which were closed as keeps. W.marsh 00:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 3[edit]

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Merge into Manchester Airport. Vegaswikian 22:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even merge it. It isn't encyclopedic. But whetever. Just delete it. i (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In every commercial airport article, and I do mean every, there's a list of airlines serving that airport and their destinations. Since when is that un-encyclopedic? Do you know something every editor of the thousands of commercial airport articles don't? --Oakshade 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't be there either... DeleteBalloonman 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. as above said, not encyclopedic. Merging is fine, however having separate articles is just useless. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - merge back in to main Manchester Airport article only that information is essential. As an aside, I can't see any such reference in the (very brief) peer review. - fchd 20:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is not authoritative. Their suggesstions do not contravene valid AfD noms. — Soleil (formerly I) 23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the AfD has contravened the peer review. Bureaucracy at its Wiki finest. --Oakshade 00:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cannot contravene the peer review, as the peer review does not have any authority. It is a bunch of editors who feel like making suggestions. — Soleil (formerly I)

And here? Rudget _{Contributions} 16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, there is authority in the result and advice. Peer review does not. I (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Learned editors from a peer review', that just leaves me speechless! Throw out AGF, throw out style guidelines, throw out all wikiprojects! I'm glad that we have found where all of the learned editors exist and they are the sole authorities on wikipedia style and don't need to consult with anyone. Talk about I like it pushed to the extreme. Vegaswikian 23:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "learned editors" are actually from WikiProject Aviation and based their recommendations on style guidelines. You're emotionsl rant (time for a Wikibreak?) appears as I don't like it.--Oakshade 23:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and getting rid of it altogether may be an even better idea. - fchd 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are you suggesting merging the content back to the Manchester Airport article, exactly opposite of what the peer review suggested? Or do you mean delete the content? --Oakshade 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - The other 2 terminal articles that were up for AfD, List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1 and List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2, have both been Kept.[2] [3] I suggest a closure of this AfD. --Oakshade 23:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close, AFD is not for proposing merges. Core desat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baton of honour[edit]

Merge/redirect to Scottish Police College. Neutrality^talk 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Recent edits have addressed the notability concerns. --Polaron | Talk 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic box opening technology[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 22:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: interesting idea, probably useful, but no proof that it's notable. Nyttend 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: check out this search, i'll rewrite article. MatthewYeager 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: added references, wikified, please reassess. MatthewYeager 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per recent edits, but looks a bit WP:SPAMMY. --Brewcrewer 08:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is due to the larger consensus for keep, and the unreasonable arguments made by the two delete supporters. Airport destinations aren't random trivia and this page will most probably be updated as the main page was before. Rudget _ 17:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) note per this DRV, this close has been overturned and the article relisted at AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 2[edit]

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think standard practice is to list all airlines in a single airport together, regardless of different terminals within the airport. The information, as such, is worth keeping. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you don't need to have a list of destinations served by an airport... that is subject to change.Balloonman 07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that.--Oakshade 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am closing this article for deletion page as a keep. Due to the larger consensus for keep and the undefined, short delete !votes which most probably came from voters who had not seeked the proper information before voting, due to the swiftness of their edits since the previous. Rudget _ 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note - per this drv, this close have been overturned and the article has been sent back to AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of destinations served by Manchester Airport Terminal 1[edit]

No reason to remove this from the main article much less to have three articles. Vegaswikian 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason to move it to a sub-article which is given on the Manchester Airport talk page, there is no Wikipedia policy which states that long lists of irrelivant information related to airports must be on the articles pages, it seems to be the opinion of one project yet this article stretches over two projects. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are display or format issues, then that should be discussed and resolved before making significant changes which may be opposed. Vegaswikian 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random trivia. Biruitorul 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup but otherwise clutters the main article. Regan123 00:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needless trivia.Balloonman 07:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would this mean you believe none of the airport articles should include a list of destinations? _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Delist - in a recent peer review editors were told to shorten the article by sectioning the terminal destinations into other pages. Rudget _{Contributions} 13:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And in the past, these types of pages have been routinely deleted. Making a change for peer review does not mean it is the correct one. Also don't forget that another project is working on a better solution then this. Your logic here seems to be based on a peer reviewer likes it justification. This issue should have been raised in the correct working projects before taking this action to make a point. Instead the decision was to ignore the existence of other projects. Vegaswikian 19:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rudget. Commercial airport articles should have destinations by terminal as has become standard. If the editors are following the direction of learned editors from a peer review, who are we to slap them in the face with this AfD. This is a prime example of why Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is official policy. I wouldn't be oppsed to creating a List of destinations served by Manchester Airport article and merging all the terminal destination articles into that. --Oakshade 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with above. Merging all the destinations into one page would be better. Rudget _{Contributions} 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the creator of the article I also agree that this can be merged into one article, even though the Airports WikiProject have given some good ideas of using expandable tables, I do not feel it would work with the large airport such as Manchester's. Vegaswikian's point that someone wants it kept because WP:ILIKEIT is contrary to the fact that they want it deleted because they do not like it. The list of destinations is notable but not notable enough to be included on the Manchester Airport article and it dominated the article with information not directly relevant to the article. The editors of the Airports Project have not given a rationale why the destinations must be included on the article other that 'just because it does'. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge as the creator I think the articles for each terminal should probably be included in one list. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I recommended daughter lists being split off in the peer review. Merging the three lists into one is a good idea as well.--BirgitteSB 20:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are comfortable with the creation of thousands of tiny new articles based on this precedent and you are totally opposed to the alternative of converting the list to a collapsed table which is likely to be the direction for all other similar articles. Vegaswikian 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see this as any sort of new precedent. There are many lists of a similar nature already. I do oppose attaching large lists directly to articles no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are prose.--BirgitteSB 20:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is a precedent for the airport articles which all contain these lists and do not have them as separate article. And I'll ask again. So you are also opposed to a collapsed table in the article. The effect of that is basically the same look as the main article pointer with the difference that we don't create thousands of extra articles. This is important given that the table allows one common format for all airport articles. The proposal you are pushing says that some articles should have information broken out into another article while the remainder should retain the information in line. And the break out point is based on a very subjective definition of large. Vegaswikian 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know how to express my opinion any more clearly: I oppose attaching large lists directly to articles of any sort, no matter what javascript tricks are used. Articles are written in prose not tabular form.--BirgitteSB 21:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        So lists and tables should not be included in articles? If they can be included what determines large in the context of any article. You are saying keep because you don't like the article with this infomation included. I do hope that the closing admin considers that the keep votes here are really WP:ILIKEIT ones. Vegaswikian 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not at all. Rather it is your nomination that is "don't like it". My "Keep" opinion is based on this list being well-defined and finite; acceptable by policy and in line with the current practice of splitting off large detailed bits from articles. While I do not like the particular suggestion you asked me about afterwards, it has nothing to do my initial “Keep” opinion. I could just have easily disliked your suggestion and said “Delete” the material entirely from Wikipedia as others have said.--BirgitteSB 14:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlow family[edit]

Fictional family in children's series, nothing indicates notability, page was created in late 2005 and has been little improved since, nothing to redirect it to that would make any sense. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if the series had an official name this could be redirected or merged, family was subject of most of the author's books. Article can probably be expanded, needs links from the pages for the individual books. Also needs to cite sources. - Snigbrook 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom because it's unreferenced. I would be willing to reconsider if appropriate references were added. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Baristarim 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I doubt notability can be established. Doctorfluffy 06:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Topfreedom. The current article in its entirety is now in the Topfreedom article. Redirect kept as this is a likely search term. --Polaron | Talk 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Jacob[edit]

She got her tits out! And gets a mountain of googles because, guess what?, tits get that on the internet. There's simply no-way this one incident can merit a biography (where's the sources). I'd call this a COATRACK for the nudity lobby, but as someone already remarked, there's less of the coat and more of the rack. -Doc^g 21:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Doc. Might merit a very short sentence in topfreedom but that really is about it. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or migrate into an article about the court decision. John Vandenberg 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this was an important case. Insipred protests across Canada and activists in the US. After her conviction was overturned, other women took advantage of the, er, legal climate. There are a couple dozen Google Books results discussing the case seriously or highlighting it as an important point. The people celebrating this -- nudists -- are in fact people who insist that it is not the titillation factor but an issue of gender equality under the law. --Dhartung | Talk 02:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then have an article on the case, or on the issue (not that we lack them) but I see NO sources for a biography of the individual.--Doc^g 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Generally, people who are known only due to a news item would get merged into a news item. However, this individual triggered a landmark legal ruling which steps it above the usual person in a news story situation. The amount of news coverage is tremendous. For eXample, this New York Times article. -- Whpq 15:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The level of news coverage isn't the issue. There's enough news coverage to mean that we can cover the issue. The question is do we have enough notable biographical information on the subject to merit a biography? Can a biography be written about this subject that isn't really just the news-story or the courtcase posing as a biography. I say no, but if you can provide sources that include notable information apart from the newsstory, I'm happy to change my mind.--Doc^g 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would not be opposed to reforming the material in the article to be about the court case if there is insufficient reliable sources to establish a bio. -- Whpq 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with Doc. Jacob was a one-hit wonder. She got her 5 minutes of fame. So what if women can bare their breasts in public. Since that time I haven't seen any new trends in public nudity. This is another case of "Interesting, yes, but who cares?" Bombycil 16:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Moke (SUV)[edit]

violation of WP:Crystal Ball and lacks sources Butterfly0fdoom 21:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources regarding the development of this "modern MINI Mid-Size SUV" are added the article during the course of this AFD discussion. --Stormie 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources, unverifiable. A few websites claim it is 'confirmed' but I can't find anything to back this up. Snigbrook 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced speculation. • nancy • 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Looks like pure speculation. --AliceJMarkham 16:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota ACE[edit]

Not only is it pure speculation (WP:Crystal Ball), there's no sources, either. Butterfly0fdoom 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content and Redirect to Toyota FT-SX. There are sources (AutoWeek) but is just another code name for the same concept vehicle. There's no reason to have a separate article. --Sesameball^Talk 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources regarding the development of this "new full-size crossover SUV to debut for the 2009 model year" are added the article during the course of this AFD discussion. --Stormie 22:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 changes so much since Doc glasgow and JzG gave their opinions (link), notably resulting in the nominator changing 'sides', and as such these two factors mean there is no way to determine a consensus from this debate. Daniel 11:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Schults[edit]

~~nn semi-pro wrestler, only about 400 google hits, obvious WP:COATRACK as it talks about the incident he had, and not about him. Delete This is a Secret ^account 21:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep after improvements This is a Secret ^account 02:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless notability established, and good sources evident. Nearly all the googles are to internet interest (myspace etc) in this one incident. We don't write up newsreports and call them biographies. There don't seem sources for a sensible biography. -Doc^g 21:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete d Guy (Help!) 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions.

Keep He retired as a wrestler prior to the WWW, so lack of Ghits isn't terribly significant. The John Stossel bitchslap and resulting lawsuit had major coverage in the US. Article could be improved admittedly, but nomination is based on recentism not lack of notability. Horrorshowj 10:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordinarily, people use the word recentism to describe the problem of articles being written about news stories with short-lived attention, which will not be of interest in 10 years. That is how the Stossel incident appears to me. So you must mean something else by recentism - what? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by it is giving undue weight to recent events and people, and conversely an inability to evaluate anything older than about ten years accurately, because you can only view it in the context of current events. I view this Afd as fitting for two reasons. First, the mention of Ghits as lack of notability. While most current pro-wrestlers generate a lot applying the same notion to someone who retired in the mid to late 1980s is ridiculous, as that's pre WWW in an industry that goes out of its way to dissuade long memories. Second, he characterized the subject as a semi-pro wrestler, apparently due to his being in regional promotions. This ignores the fact that prior to about the same time his career ended there were no national promotions in North America. Schults was in every one of the major promotions for 15-20 years which is a pretty good track record and definitely not deserving of a semi-pro description. Horrorshowj 00:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is mainly based as a WP:COATRACK article This is a Secret ^account —Preceding comment was added at 18:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay not a policy or guideline. It also primarily refers to articles that are pushing a biased interpretation. What about the article is pushing a bias? Horrorshowj 00:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw keep it....it's an interesting tidbit. Not every article should be a feature length production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.155.197 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. Looks to me like notability is asserted, and it's well sourced. Tromboneguy0186 22:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon (The Legend of Zelda Series)[edit]

As one can tell from this article's talk page, deletion sentiment has been simmering all the way since it was first created. The article author's WP:OWN-y attitude and stubborn refusal to justify contentious statements in the article with sources has not helped any. At any rate, these are not deletion reasons. I contend that the article does not cover a notable topic; there is nothing that makes Zelda dungeons any more notable than dungeons from any other game in the genre. Sure, dungeons exist in Zelda games, but that does not make them a notable topic to write an article about. The whole article amounts to poorly repeating what the "Gameplay" sections of each individual game article say, except with more WP:OR and unverifiable statements. Axem Titanium 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is a non-notable topic not backed by any reliable sources. At most, it deserves to be a sub-section of gameplay in the series article. TTN 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primarily WP:OR with no reliable sources to demonstrate notability of the topic. --Sesameball^Talk 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely OR, already covered by "Gameplay" sections of game articles and the series article. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Unsourced information. Should be merged to main Zelda page under gameplay if possible. --Hdt83 ^Chat 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - Okay. Everybody here probably expects that I'll weigh in on this debate, especially since I have SUCH a WP:OWN-y attitude about it (tell me YOU don't about YOUR OWN articles). This article was originally going to discuss dungeons in video games in general, but I could not conceive of any other games that really have "dungeons" in the sense that the Zelda series does, so it turned into a heavily Zelda-based article, which does include a loose definition of a "dungeon" in the sense used outside of the Zelda series. I don't feel that this subject, whether of Zelda or otherwise, gets proper treatment anywhere on Wikipedia, and so I set out to fill a perceived need for such a definition, and though some things that are mentioned in this article are similar to those in the articles written on each individual game, I haven't repeated anything. I put everything into my own words, with several sources to back some of the stuff up, while most of what is written herein can be found by anyone who has a console and a game. A lot of the video-game-related content on Wikipedia is written with the games as the basis for the majority of the information given in the articles, yet most people don't seem to have a problem with that. I don't doubt that the Zelda dungeons have served as the basis and model for many other things. Video games are a strong influence in modern cultures across the world. Zelda is one of the largest components in that category. Dungeons, which are one of the series' most prominent features, are part of the Zelda series and beg a definition, which cannot currently be found on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for helping people improve their ideas, not tearing them down, but that's all I've gotten about this article so far.Cocoapropo 02:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, no, that's not what wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is about building a premier encyclopedia on the web. Of course, that often means helping editors improve their ideas... but it also means there are many policies we must follow, such as the ones we've mentioned - like WP:V and WP:OR (and in this case WP:NOTE, since we're discussing whether the article should exist). As I mentioned in my delete vote, the problem with the article is that it is largely original research and has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Also, I would respectfully suggest that most editors are, in fact, fully capable of taking a detatched approach to articles they created or may have strong personal feelings about. --Sesameball^Talk 02:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR per Hyper Dragon. I, for one, don't feel that way about my own articles, most of which look completely different from when I first created them by now. JuJube 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Most of my "research" comes straight from the games themselves. One thing I was wondering about is that I noticed that the Hyrule article hasn't been nominated for deletion, even though it only has a small handful of sources, most of which are on one topic within the article, and none of which are notable or official that I can see, and most of the rest of the article is from the games themselves or player observation. What's your take on this, I wonder? If you are going to apply it to me, apply it to this situation and all others.Cocoapropo 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I reformatted your edit only so it doesn't disrupt the rest of the daily AfD page - nothing personal. As for your question: please reference WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Sesameball^Talk 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, and opinion with no reliable sources, and no notability -- Whpq 15:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Cocoapropo, your research is called source based research (as in primary source). Look here WP:OR and it will tell you about source based research, and how it can come straight from a video game, and that it is not OR at all. It will also tell you that primary sources such as this are allowed on WP, even though a lot of editors forget that. All you need to do to save your article is find some reliable secondary sources to back up you primary source. Nintendo power, news articles, fan cites ext. I believe that this is a notable topic and the most that should be done is move the whole thing to The Legend of Zelda (series) under its own heading. Obviously Zelda is notable, and you can't talk about Zelda without talking about the dungeons. Also, yes the article does need cleaned up, but thats not a reason to delete it. Cocoapropo, another thing about WP, unfortunately information added does need sources. And unfortunately again, you don't need sources to delete something. Saying "I think this is true" holds no ground whatsoever, but saying "I think this is false" is a valid argument. Its in no way fair, but its the way WP is run. Viperix 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Viperix, I really appreciate you for saying that. If you could help me come up with more secondary sources, I would appreciate that more. As for your comment, Mr. IP Address Only, I realize, as stated above, that there are dungeons in other games, but as I mentioned, I couldn't come up with any that were like the Zelda dungeons, which, as far as I know, have pretty unique dungeons in the strictest sense of the definition as purposed in this article. If you would like to add to the article to include other games and their so-called dungeons, please do, because that's what I was going for in the first place. I did mention these in the introduction to the article though in a very general fashion, so unless you have a significant contribution to make that would change the course of the whole article and merge the existing one into a new one to justify deleting this article, then save it for another place. If you are going to merge this into a new article, too, make sure the title of the article is broad so as to include all such dungeons. Thanks for your input.Cocoapropo 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dungeons in Zelda are not significantly different from other games, such as Dragon Warrior. 132.205.99.122 20:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – such a comparison of Zelda dungeons belongs on a blog or forum or something. Not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, unless it has some deeper influence or significance. --jacobolus (t) 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such as what, jacobulus? If you have suggestions, please share. Respond on my talk page or the discussion page, if you read this. For the rest of you, I have added a few more references and specifically stated that EVERYTHING written in the article comes straight from the games, unless other references are specifically provided. I would also like to ask again if any of you feel that this subject gets proper treatment on Wikipedia already, and if so, where? Put yourself in the shoes of a non-Zelda fanatic and, if you were reading the Zelda articles, would you want to know what a "dungeon" is? Do the articles currently provide a decent working definition? If nothing else, if you're not going to help improve this article, at least help it be gently merged into an existing article (not multiple articles) where it would make sense, and provide a proper redirect. If, on the other hand, you do not feel that this subject receives proper treatment elsewhere on Wikipedia, then it is a perfectly legitimate entry.Cocoapropo 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reviewed the sources you've added. Aside from the FAQ type sites, they would be fine for the Zelda series article. But none of the references provided support notability for dungeons in the Zelda series. In fact, I dont; even see the word dungeon used in them. They support facts you've added about the series. But that infromation belongs in the Zelda series article. -- Whpq 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, important feature common to the games in a best-selling series. It makes sense to have an article dealing with them as a group. We can write similar articles about dungeons in other series as well. Everyking 05:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are notable within the context of Zelda but not in the wider context of the encyclopedia as a whole. The same can be said about dungeon articles regarding other series. Axem Titanium 20:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Zelda series article, per above arguments. Yes, dungeons are integral to the Zelda gameplay, but they deserve a general summary at most, and not specific mentions of layouts, enemies, objects found, etc. Zelda dungeons are just like dungeons in other adventure games - places to wander around, solve mazes, kill enemies and collect treasures. We should either merge this article's content with the main Zelda series, or merge it with a more general article about dungeons in adventure games. It would make a nice mention in a general Dungeon article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, but credit to the editors for cited sources for their work.--Gavin Collins 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm at a loss to find anything here that's not in The Legend of Zelda (series), and there's an implication in this article bordering on OR to the effect that dungeons in the LoZ sense are a unique creation of the game series. -Harmil 00:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball close: rivers are notable if verifiable. `'Míkka 19:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iavardi River[edit]

I think this river is not notable. I believe that it did not receive any significant coverage in any type of source (emphasis used to refer to WP:N). The only sources in which it seems to appear are maps. I have proposed the article for deletion before, but the prod was removed. The subsequent discussion on the talk page did not convince me that this subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Pepve 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major geographic features such as rivers are inherently notable. It's likely there are print sources and non-English sources that can eventually be used for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does this inherent notability come from? Which policy or guideline states it? How small must a river be not to be included? And have you checked Google Maps as I did, only to conclude that the river is probably no more than two foot wide? (I'm sorry for all these questions, but this keeps me awake.) -- Pepve 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung. If this was a drainage canal, maybe I'll support you. I can't find any guidelines in WP:NOTE and WP:LOCAL that says rivers should pass notability (maybe it is simply common sense that they do pass notability). Actually, if you understand Romanian, went on a library section that deals with Romanian rivers, have secured Romanian news articles then prove to me that this river is nn. Then I'll be convinced that you have a point. Alternatively, you could tag it {{geo-stub}} and wait for WP:RIVER or Romanian wikipedians to fix it (Fixing geo-stubs is hard work, trust me).--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to prove non-notability of some subject from an area where another language is spoken, one has to know that language. Enforcing that would give carte blanche to all speakers of small languages... Can we not just use common sense? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just shown you the non-common sense way to prove that the article is worthy of deletion because you simply don't get it (or refuse to get it). I did not say that this would be the approach in all foreign language articles, (the best way to address such problem is to notify a neutral wikipedian that understands the article or the Wikiproject in question). Oh by the way, define small language.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with: "I simply don't get it." Because I really don't see the common sense in any of this. (And really, I'm not stupid enough to define 'small language'.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The others are correct. Major geographical features such as rivers and mountains are notable. It's not like this is self promotion, advertising or a violation of WP:BLP. --Oakshade 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for replying to each and every comment, I'll pace myself after this one. Just this: from what principle, guideline or thought do you conclude that all rivers are notable? -- Pepve 23:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense. The New York Times just isn't going to write an in depth piece on most, if not all, rivers in Romania, yet it's still a river that provides water, food, and navigation, the source of original settlement for villages, towns and cities and being a tributary to much larger rivers. --Oakshade 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you say Pepve, let's just use common sense. A river is obviously inherently notable. Nick mallory 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a perfectly reasonable geography stub to me. A quick google search (in English, even) reveals that the river's valley is notable for its limestone, and the river has a well-known local waterfall. I've added a little more to the article (though it would have been a keep in any case, even without it). Grutness...wha? 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The AfD template had been removed from the article by User:Afil. Have re-added it and left a comment on the User's talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further note - if I hadn't commented on this personally, I'd probably have closed it as a snowball keep... any passing admin agree with that assessment and willing to do the honours? Grutness...wha? 00:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - And indeed I feel like I'm in an avalanche. :-) -- Pepve 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused (you might have guessed that already), my google search for 'iavardi' comes up with two relevant hits: our article and a photo album of a hiking trip. How did you find the other information? And why did you add peacock terms ("is regarded as one of the most beautiful") to the article? I've learned not to use them... (I mean no offense, but accept my apologies if you're offended.) -- Pepve 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - well, the link you just provided ( google search for 'iavardi') produced 3,760 hits for me... I don't know how it only came up with two for you! You're probably right about the peacock terms, though. Grutness...wha? 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And my Google search brings up 455 hits. Regardless, I'm inclined to believe that all rivers are notable. Maxa megalon 2000 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long a there are reliable sources showing existence agree that all such geographical features are automatically notable. Davewild 09:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw by nominator (is there such a thing?) This is a battle I can not win, my views on Wikipedia are apparently quite different from the views of a lot of co-Wikipedians. Rest assured that you did not convert me, I still believe that such articles have no place in any encyclopedia. Wikipedia should not have all information, a selection has to be made. There will not be enough potential editors in the world to finish the articles if everything was selected. (And Grutness, I want your Google!) -- Pepve 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Core desat 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of female rock singers[edit]

Should be deleted for the same reason as List of female singers. They add nothing to Category:Female rock singers and Category:Female metal singers. Spellcast 18:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the red links as redirects to the appropriate bands first. — RJH (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable intersection of traits. Axem Titanium 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list lets me search by the groups the singer is in, the category doesn't allow me to do that. The list would be even more useful if it was broken into solo singers and group singers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons stated by Richard Arthur Norton. Asarelah 01:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the too general "list of female singers", this list is specific to females who sing or perform rock music which is very male dominated. This list is valuable to the category as it provides more names including some that may not have their own Wikipedia page outside of their band articles. Rj24 3:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep For the above reasons and more. Angli Cado Primoris 01:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Brendanconway. — iridescent 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James collins, english singer[edit]

Almost slapped an A7 on this as the claims to notability seem to amount to so much froth, but given the amount of work that's gone into this, bringing it over to give benefit of the doubt. Every claim in this article is less than it appears; on closer reading, this does not seem to actually be the bio of a bona fide opera singer, but a vanispam piece (albeit a cut about the usual WP:NOT#MYSPACE fodder) about someone with no actual achievements other than an appearance in what I strongly suspect is a single am-dram production. — iridescent 18:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology departments and laboratories[edit]

Does not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY, and Wikipedia is not a directory. Specifically, the article does not (and I don't think ever would be able to) provide significant coverage using reliable secondary, independent sources. Noetic Sage 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - additionally, the article makes no indication to ever provide claims of notability. --Sesameball^Talk 18:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do we really need a list of departments and labs? I doubt it. It's currently a linkfarm in some areas. We're not a directory, so delete. i (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons. Also, the MIT web site does a very good job of listing Labs and Centers, as well as Departments. The main MIT article could just link to those pages. Note, I'm an MIT alumnus, Class of 1971. Lentower 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with all comments above. If we had some special 'edge' in describing how MIT was organized, or we knew something about MIT's structure that hadn't been widely publicized, then there could be a reason for this. I don't believe that is the case. Sourcing this correctly would be very tough; it would necessarily become a lagged and often incorrect copy of the directory on one of MIT's own websites. EdJohnston 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not fit for WP. And, good suggestion: simply link to the directories on the MIT website, they do a very good job there with those pages (unlike many other Universities, I may add). Turgidson 03:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need to duplicate subpages of MIT's web site here. JJL 23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least the department section. That doesn't seem well described on MIT's site. Therefore it could be of interest to people who want to understand MIT's structure. Unless the labs can be arranged similarly, I'll support their removal Mbisanz 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the MIT Depatment page, if you mouse over the name of the school, the names of the departments in the school are also highlighted, which shows the structure. If you need something more like the way it's done on the List we are considering deleting, I suggest you ask the MIT Webmasters to do it there. That helps all Internet users, not just those who look at WP. Lentower 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as cruft and advertising for a university that can afford its own webspace. We already have MIT. Bearian 17:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AliceJMarkham 01:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Encyclopedic topic, lots of room for expansion. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians who play left handed[edit]

Unless being left handed had a profound impact on their career, this is an indiscriminate and trivial list. Spellcast 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If you're familiar at all with playing a guitar, you'll have to admit that most guitars are designed to be played "right-handed". Essentially, you finger the chords with your left-hand, and you "play" the guitar (the strumming and picking that separates the pros from the amateurs) with your right hand. It's not as easy as it sounds. It's less of a problem now, with backward-looking "left-handed guitars" available, but the problem is in the way that the strings are configured. Mandsford 19:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Unless them being left handed is important and relevant, then there is no need for such a list. If it is relevant to someone, put it in their article. If we start getting a few, we can make an article about it. But I doubt that will ever happen. So delete it. i (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable intersection of traits. Axem Titanium 19:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually left-handedness and mixed-handedness are both linked to musical accomplishment in adults. See my comment below for details and a WP:RS. - Neparis 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just seems too trivial for a list on WP. I understand the difference it makes in learning to play but I think it makes more sense in context of the individual articles rather than as a grouped list. Interesting but not really very encyclopedic in my view. Pigman^what?/trail 20:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Being left-handed is relevant here because playing left-handed is different from playing right-handed. There are books written about playing left-handed guitar. (added: Left-Handed Guitar: The Complete Method by Troy Stetina, for example.) Etc. Being left-handed may not have a profound effect on their career, but it has a profound effect on the way they play. Albert King, for instance, had a unique style because he was left-handed, as well as Elizabeth Cotten. They both played a right-handed guitar left-handed without restinging it, which made the string backwards for a left-handed person. It also affected the playing of Jimi Hendrix because he played right-handed guitars altered for left-handed playing, but leaving the controls alone, so they were on the opposite side as normal for him. Steve Miller (musician) thought that this was such an important factor in Hendrix's playing that he had a special guitar made that was essentially a left-handed guitar altered for right-handed playing. (added: In fact, the photo on that page shows him playing such a guitar.) Bubba73 (talk), 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: this is a lot more relevant than, say, actors who are left-handed. I've been wanting to expand this artice to explain more about it. A left-handed person who plays guitar either (1) learns to play right-handed (awkward at best, impossible at worst), (2) plays a right-handed guitar upside down, making the strings backward for a left-handed person, leading to a different style, and (3) playing a proper left-handed guitar. And category (3) can be broken down into (3a) play a true left-handed guitar and (3b) play a right-handed guitar modified for playing left-handed. And (3b) involves problems with intonation and non-symmetrical bracing and other features of the guitar. There is a lot more here than meets the eye at first glance. Bubba73 (talk), 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS: I don't want to significantly change the article while it is up for deletion, but instead of deleting it, I would like a chance to expand it to more than just a list. Bubba73 (talk), 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if you do it now, actually. If you can satisfy some of those who support deletion while the article is still being discussed, then it's all good. i (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do a lot of work on the article and then have it deleted. Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've somewhat changed my mind after giving examples of musicians where playing left handed had an effect on their work. But how much can be said for the rest of the musicians in the list? Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category-fy Also, please note there is a difference between being left-handed and playing left-handed. Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Category-fy" mean? Bubba73 (talk), 01:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He means make the list into a category like Category:Musicians who play left handed. Spellcast 10:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would do any good because it wouldn't explain anything. Bubba73 (talk), 15:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explanatory text can be added to the category header. Alternately, an article on left-handed musicianship can be written, and a link to the category can be made to look like a link to a list, as I have done with List of hip hop musicians from Memphis, Tennessee. Fee Fi Foe Fum 21:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is exactly the type of information that is good for a list and bad for a category, and while it's not the greatest list in execution, it easily could be much better. Lists allow for sources and explication that categories do not (e.g. what type(s) of guitar a player had learned, or nuances of style). It is unquestionable that left-handed guitarists have been among the most influential rock guitarists and there has been speculation why this is so; there's a whole book about it. --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book is $350. I've bought 20 or so books to use as references for WP, but this one is too expensive. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan to use as a reference. Bubba73 (talk), 15:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NOTE and WP:V. There is a statistically significant increase in the proportion of left-handers (and mixed-handers) in skilled adult instrumentalists, composers and singers as compared with a normal population, and this increase is not a consequence of musical training. Being left-handed or mixed-handed makes someone more likely to be musically talented. This link between handedness and musicality in adults has been well documented in WP:RS; see, for example:
- John P Aggleton (1994), Handedness and Musical Ability: A Study of Professional Orchestral Players, Composers, and Choir Members, Psychology of Music 22(2):148-156
- Neparis 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't think that musicians playing left handed was particularly special. But after reading the comments by Bubba and the source given by Neparis, I see that it may not be as much of a trivial intersection as I thought. It would be good to see the article cite sources though. Spellcast 18:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please don't delete the article until I've had a chance to expand it. I'll try to do that within a few days. Bubba73 (talk), 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlee Yarrow[edit]

This is a repost but having looked at the previous article, this is sufficiently different in its claim of his being the "first person to be expelled from the Socialist Party", that it doesn't qualify for speedy deleted under CSD G4. The ten references are not as they seem: the first four do not mention him at all; the fifth is just a mention; the sixth is to a website which list every person in the country running for office and this candidate's answers to a boilerplate survey sent to all such candidates (accordingly not an independent nor a reliable secondary source); the seventh, eighth and ninth are blogs, and the last supposedly had an article on his appearance at a coffee shop, but which article is not found through that link.

A Google search doesn't turn up anything further that could be seen as significant treatment in any independent, reliable source. He's not a political figure who has ever held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, nor was ever a member of a national, state or provincial legislatures. Accordingly, the subject [still] does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people).--Fuhghettaboutit 17:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the convincing evidence and rationale given by Fuhghettaboutit. i (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. The only relevant news coverage I could find was this. Note that being the first to be kicked out of the party isn't all that notable considering the resultant non-coverage of the event in the news. -- Whpq 15:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Scary Movie[edit]

This is a non-notable list of characters that fails WP:FICT. It details minor characters that do not need coverage, so it is essentially indiscriminate information also. TTN 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles name says it all; this is a list of non-notable characters from a notable movie. TonyBallioni 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As they're not important, they should not have an article. It might be better served redirecting, although I have a sneaking suspicion that has already been tried. i (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, by virtue of being too minor to mention encyclopedically. Axem Titanium 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. I can't even believe there's a fanbase for this garbage that cared enough to create this. JuJube 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Simply not notable enough. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 13:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Rosa Plaza[edit]

Regional mall, no apparent notability presented in the article or cited. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability (speedable per (CSD/A7). Apparent media coverage regarding notability: "Dog bites man": [4].
Wikipedia is not a mall directory.--victor falk 22:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You seemed to have missed all the stories that are directly about the mall that are not of the "dog bites man" variety incidents that took place there. --Oakshade 22:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like Santa Roza Plaza to Offer Microsoft Internet? It's about Santa Roza Plaza, without the shadow of a doubt. But it's still about a dog biting a man.--victor falk 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's in depth non-trivial coverage by a secondary reliable source about the mall which easily passes WP:NOTABILITY. By the way, no such WP:MANBITESDOG guideline exists and likely can't as there's too much subjectivity. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no WP:MANBITESDOG, but there is a policy about common sense.

Keep - Being a "regional" mall is actually a strong reason to keep it as they are major malls that serve an entire region, not just a small neighborhood. The Press Democrat has written many in depth stories on this mall [5] [6] [7] (and many more [8]) --Oakshade 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Your third link is about crime that takes place at the mall, not about it. And you could have saved yourself the trouble of linking to the same Hated Google Test as I did.--victor falk 00:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment above and you're either ignoring the non-trivial coverage this topic has received or simply trying to get mall articles deleted (I see you're giving the same cut-and-paste argument on other mall articles AfDs). You seem to have no understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines and simply don't like malls. If you want to change WP:NOTABILITY, you have to make your argument there, not on a specific article's AfD. --Oakshade 00:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't especially like or dislike malls, but I love wikipedia articles about malls. For instance, I love Country Club Plaza. That's a good article. It tells me more about it than what's its anchors are and wether or not Microsoft offers wifi there. It tells me trivia like it was it was dubbed "Nichol's Folly" because the land bought for it was used for pig farming. It tells me quadrivia like as the first mall designed for automobile shoppers, so it had a major impact on American consumer habits. It is encyclopedic. Unfortunately, I can't see no shadow of that in Santa Rosa Plaza. If anybody truly believes there is the tiniest spark, {{sofixit}}. Don't bother about sources, just write; I will change my vote to keep without a single one, as long as it plausible enough not be a hoax.--victor falk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You simply don't like the non-trivial secondary sources about this topic and the fact they establish notability. You're citing only one article that remotely supports your non-existent guideline argument and ignoring the others which are much more deeper in scope about this mall than the Microsoft story anyway. And the argument to delete this article just because it's not as good as another is also non-sensical (I guess that's the fictional WP:NOTASGOODAS guideline). Wikipedia is a never-ending project and it takes time, sometimes a lot of it, for articles on notable topics to improve. --Oakshade 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral Perhaps its size is sufficient for it being notable. In this case, the article has to be expanded with those claims, and non-subscription sources added.--victor falk 14:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per abundance or RSs. Too bad they're mostly subscription. - Peregrine Fisher 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable enough to keep this. Ridernyc 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply put, the article fails to demonstrate notability. Also its size is small then the 800,000 sq ft that is generally accepted as granting notability for size. Vegaswikian 21:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are more malls this size near where I live than I have fingers and toes. This mall is no more notable than them. Axem Titanium 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Survivor: The Australian Outback per precedent with other contestant articles and since no strong reason to keep was mentioned in the debate. --Polaron | Talk 18:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Olson[edit]

Doesn't seem to have done anything of note other than Survivor, and ample precedent proves that Survivor alone isn't enough for a page. For example, see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacy Kimball, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassandra Franklin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Angarita.

Delete and recreate as redirect to Survivor: The Australian Outback, game-show contestants do not possess encyclopedic notability. --Stormie 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Hi, guys. I created the article, and didn't know that there had been a decision against game show contestant articles, or even that Olson had already had an article that was deleted, as someone later informed me. I'm kinda fuzzy on the criteria for notability, and created the article because Olson lives in my home town, and I was tired of looking at that red link of his name under the Noteworthy Residents section of the Union City, New Jersey article. I apologize for this matter, but I'm going to steer clear of the vote, since I would probably appear biased. Nightscream 16:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Nothing forbids articles about game show participants, other than the need to establish notability. The sources and claims made here support a claim of notability. If additional sources are added, I will be willing to reconsider my vote. Alansohn 04:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he hasn't established notability in his other endeavours. -- Whpq 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/delete to Survivor: The Australian Outback per consensus This is a Secret ^account 19:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. east.718 at 00:30, 11/4/2007

Medieval Combat Society[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group, only 23 Ghits, none of them significant coverage. Masaruemoto 03:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to [List of historical reenactment groups]] may be worth a single line there. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or redirect as above. I see a sliver of notability here, especially the claim of having appeared on Red Dwarf, but of course that isn't backed up by reliable sources, indeed nor is anything else here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of historical reenactment groups as that is where it belongs. TonyBallioni 18:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tony. There are only 21 Ghits excluding Wikipedia itself. jj137 (Talk) 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Schultz[edit]

Apparently non-notable graphic designer. Being an editor, or even a "founding member", of even a recognized journal is not notable, IMHO. Even if I'm wrong there, we have no sources for the journal being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Previous {{PROD}} restored, as the recreation appears to also contain an appeal of that deletion, which should be automatically restored.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of being unable to find secondary sources for either artist or journal. --Sesameball^Talk 18:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clubmarx 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am attempting to restore an old entry that someone wrote on me some time ago. I assume it was notable then because it was not challenged or deleted outright, and I have tried to write in the spirit of the original entry. The question of what constitutes "notability" and whether I am "notable" is highly debatable, but I do know that the magazines and periodicals I've been included in are important to the design industry and Designorati.com is fairly well-known as well. Would it help if I cited a few sources where Designorati.com has been listed and mentioned by other (notable, I assume) designers, design pubs and blogs? Jeremyschultz 16:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Johnbod 03:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Campbell (Scary Movie)[edit]

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scary Movie. jj137 (Talk) 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotta love the "quotes" section. I'm somewhat ambivalent about this. She is a character in all four movies. I'm not up on the franchise, but do any other characters have roles in all four? I'd be swayed to keep if there were one or two sources, but at the moment there aren't. So delete for now. i (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What matters is not how many movies she appears in, but rather how many citations there are in reliable sources. I see none, so there is no reason to have an article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'm saying that there is a good chance she would have sources, and because she is a more important aspect of the series, I'd be more inclined to accept less sources than I normally would. However, we currently lack that, so I said delete for now. i (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 23:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete holy crap, do we need character articles for every awful parody movie? I have dibs on Dick Steele. JuJube 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty Meeks (Scary Movie)[edit]

This is a non-notable character that fails WP:FICT's standards by not having real world information as described in WP:WAF. By failing those, it also fails the general notability guideline and it's two companions. Aside from that, it is built up from unwarrented plot information, and trivial quotes. TTN 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete text and redirect to Scary Movie. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scary Movie. jj137 (Talk) 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Cindy, he is not a key part of the series. So it would take a lot of sources for me to wish to keep the article. So I have no problem redirecting. i (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many times does a character have to appear to be a key character? Shorty made 2 appereances maybe 3 in 2008 so I consider him a key character. Music2611 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of appearences of the CHARACTER in the MOVIE has NO BEARING on notability. What we need is appearences of THIS CHARACTER in independant reliable sources (i.e. sources that are not fan blogs, and which also are not made by the producers of the movie). Since the character lacks any coverage by such sources, it is non-notable, no matter HOW MUCH they appear in the movie in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dumb, non-notable character from dumb, non-notable series of films. JuJube 02:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. No coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 08:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Haze Oil Orgy[edit]

Warning to those of a sensitive disposition or editing from work: page contains a pornographic image. Contested speedy deletion under somewhat dubious circumstances (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rlk89). As "the first Blu-Ray porn film" is, I suppose, a vague assertion of notability - and any prod is bound to be contested - bringing it here. Personally, I don't think "first released in a particular medium" is a sufficient assertion of notability, given the sheer number of different video/film formats there have been over the years (and the fact that the first in any given format will almost certainly vary country-by-country), but others may beg to differ. — iridescent 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim is unsourced to any independent and reliable sources, without verification to this claim, there is nothing left except an article about an entirely non-notable porn film. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Even if being the first blu-ray porn movie was notable the article contains no verifiable sources that could confirm this claim. TonyBallioni 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that there is some truth (SFW) to the claim that it's the first porn movie produced for Blu-Ray. (See also this article (SFW), this one (VERY NSFW), here (SFW) and here (SFW).) It wasn't the first released, as a re-release of Debbie Does Dallas holds that distinction. A fairly quick Google search turns these up, and these aren't all that it turns up. LaMenta3 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as said before, first blu-ray porn movie is a not the most notable distinction in the world. Axem Titanium 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Jenna Haze, if there is anything to merge not already contained in the mention in Jenna Haze#Pornographic film career. --Stormie 22:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources provided to verify claims of notability. • Gene93k 00:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Epbr123 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 01:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desperately trying to resist the urge to speedy it. Unsupported and highly dubious claim of very minimal notability. I question whether that tidbit would even merit inclusion in a "Trivia" list about the actors or production company and wholeheartedly debate the claim that this in any way warrants an entire article about the fact. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by User:LaMenta3. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added those sources to the article. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that even if it were proven to be the first porn film to be released on blu-ray that that would in itself be notable; the first porn film on video was notable as it marked a watershed which changed the course of the industry as anyone who has seen Boogie Nights will know and the first porn film on HD could similarly be considered a watershed moment but the first film on a variant of a format? - this is when it gets less easy to argue. • nancy • 19:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor correction/clarification: This was the first porn film produced for HD; the first one released was a republishing of Debbie Does Dallas. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced first. Adult films may very well establish which HD format is successful. So notability is clearly established. The above deletes are based on no references, but they are now there. Vegaswikian 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the above deletes are based upon the belief that being the first pornography film produced for high-definition (not even the first released in HD) is not a distinction of notability. The lack of sources to support this claim was merely an additional reason cited alongside the lacking notability to advocate deletion. AmiDaniel (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first of anything is notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first cheeseburger I ate? -- AmiDaniel (talk) 08:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nice try but no, because your not notable. However, the first cheeseburger would be. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Jenna Haze seems like the best option here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Positive psychology. --Polaron | Talk 22:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation (psychology)[edit]

Procedural nomination per conversation here. This was transwikied to Wiktionary some months ago and hence {{prod}}ded off Wikipedia; however it appears to no longer exist on Wiktionary. (Without wikt sysop powers, I've no way to tell whether it never made it across for some reason, or was deleted after its arrival there.) In light of that, bringing it procedurally to AfD for a consensus as to whether it should remain on Wikipedia, be re-transwikied, merged into another Wikipedia article or deleted. — iridescent 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Positive psychology. This seems a valid concept in positive psychology, and thus merits SOME mention that article, but there is not enough information here to merit a separate article. No prejudice to recreating the seperate article if the main article becomes large enough, and this gets enough information to stand alone, but as it stands now, there is little more here than a dictionary definition --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Also it appears not to have made it over Regan123 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the triple. Daniel 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela L. Johnson[edit]

This article is liabilist. The information is inaccurate. Dr. Johnson did not "lie" about her application. See the State of New Mexico Board Order. There were not 6 lawsuits. Recommend immediate removal.fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggyLinda (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a colleague of Dr Johnson's. I have worked with her for many years. She is a competent, conscientious doctor who is very concerned with her patient’s well being. Although she has had difficulties associated with major surgical procedures in the past, she has shifted her practice to a specialty that does not require such procedures, and so should be allowed to practice without continuous harassment. Dr Johnson left the practice of OB/GYN in 2002; she has not done surgery since. The Washington Post article was based on an article written in the Los Alamos Monitor. At the time of the article, Dr Johnson was no longer practicing as an obstetrician/gynecologist; she was undergoing another residency training program in preventive medicine after having decided that she would change her practice specialty. The reporter knew this, but she wrote in the article that Dr Johnson was an obstetrician/gynecologist even though she knew this information to be inaccurate.

The Washington Post article has many erroneous statements. Dr Johnson had applied for her VA, NM and MI licenses before she was aware that she had made an error in her application. She made the same error on all application forms based on the information that she received from her NC attorney. Her North Carolina attorney stated this to the VA Medical Board. It is not true that she moved from state to state to avoid problems with the respective state medical boards. The initial medical board order was not written until after Dr Johnson had completed all of these licensure applications and had been practicing in VA and NM. Anyone could tell this by looking at the dates, but the reporter elected to ignore this information and thus made up her own story about Dr Johnson, adding and deleting information until she had a sensational but erroneous story. Dr Johnson had medical licenses in 4 different states. How many times have you unintentionally made an error on an application form and been punished this aggressively? Dr Johnson has been punished more than 4 times by different medical boards for the same error in her applications. In addition, the patient the Washington Post reporter wrote about, was not Dr Johnson's personal patient, she was a non-paying patient who had surgery done by the resident physicians; Dr Johnson's name was one of the attending names on the chart, along with many other Duke physicians. Dr Johnson talked to the editor of the Washington Post after the article was written and explained how the reporter misinterpreted and twisted the information. I believe the reporter is no longer at the Washington Post....but excessive damage has occurred.

I would highly recommend that this article be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaSammy (talk • contribs)

Delete db-bio, db-attack, take your pick. NN person that lost her medical license and was brought to malpractice. One real media source, BLP magnet. Not improved since last AFD. Don't mind the wall of text above. Clear WP:POINT nomination, but that doesn't make the article any less crappy. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although I didn't explicitly !vote during the prior AFD my sentiments were clearly in favor of something like a weak keep. At this point it's clear that Johnson does not meet a continuing coverage test and indeed has very limited attention outside of the one WaPo series. I don't believe she satisfies WP:BIO or WP:BLP1E at this time. Note that I removed about two paragraphs from SashaSammy's post that were clearly libelous against an individual (and basically an ad hominem argument). --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure she's a very poor physician - I wouldn’t let her within 10 feet of my pregnant wife. But this is a slanderous attack page. Dr. Johnson will get her just reward/punishment; the wheels turn slowly, but let's not have Wikipedia serve to harm her. Tiptopper 11:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:N and WP:RS, but edit. JJL 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If a list article is created and someone wishes to merge, feel free to let me know. Core desat 03:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BNSF 7687[edit]

Contested prod. A non notable locomotive.

Also including BNSF 7695 Nuttah68 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and redirect to an UNLINKED list article, maybe List of BNSF locomotives. These and other non-notable locomotives could be merged to a list article per WP:LIST guidelines and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging instructions; that is often how such items are handled. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Not a notable locomotive. There's no need to redirect it. I don't see enough people searching for the term to warrant it. i (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN locomotive. Wikipedia is not a directory of rolling stock. There are plenty of railfan websites for this material (though I have no idea if any are wikis, which would be useful). --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notification left on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm strongly inclined (even as a railfan) to agree with Dhartung above, and I'll add that these days the barriers to starting your own wiki are very low. If there needs to be a wiki to cover this material, one or more of the railfan Web sites should start one. --Tkynerd 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a fledgling Wiki -- TrainSpotting World -- but even there I wouldn't expect to see sub-stub articles on non-heritage diesels.
  EdJogg 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect according to Jayron32's proposal. ----DanTD 05:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above EdJogg 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Jayron32's proposal above. --Oakshade 23:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only assertion of notability is the color scheme used to paint the locomotives. If there's something to say about BNSF color schemes, it should probably be mentioned elsewhere. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7. --Stormie 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Carbajal[edit]

The only notable thing about this guy is his father was a Uruguayan soccer player. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:BIO. He's a notable athlete by playing for Toronto Croatia, which is professional team in the highest level Canadian soccer league, the Canadian Soccer League. Athletes that play at the highest level in their sport are notable. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was his dad that played for Toronto Croatia. Canuck85 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ah. good catch. I misread that. Then he is absolutely non-notable, and this article appears to a borderline A7 speedy. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7 by User:Hemlock Martinis. --Stormie 22:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Park Esq[edit]

Obviously untrue, and complete nonsense --J.StuartClarke 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Leather Jesus[edit]

Black Leather Jesus is a noise collective from Houston formed by Richard Ramirez. This 3-line article has been tagged since June 2007. I'm unsure whether they count as "notable" - they did open up for Sonic Youth in their hometown, but the first links that come up in Google are MySpace, and Wikipedia. I'm also suspecting that maybe this article should just be merged into Richard Ramirez. If there's any proof that these guys (or Ramirez) are as "notable" as Orphx or Coil or Merzbow, I'd think we could keep it; but it's not up to me, it's up to Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I'll change my mind if someone finds something notable about the group. No notability, not even the assertion thereof. Might qualify for a speedy, but I want to give this one a chance because I like the idea. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with Dennis, if someone can show this is notable, I'd change my mind. The title should be moved to "Black Leather Jesus (band)"... I thought this would be about a really tacky velvet painting. Mandsford 15:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on the move -- the title is not ambiguous because, as far as I can see, all Google hits refer to this. There's no need to disambiguate, as this page would just wind up being redirected to the new one. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per above. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no notability has been asserted,but should the page be kept I agree with Mandsford that it should be moved to Black Leather Jesus (band). TonyBallioni 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a redirect to Richard Ramirez would be acceptable. I don't see the rationale for disambiguating a term that has no obvious conflict with an existing article, though. See WP:DAB and WP:NC. --Dhartung | Talk 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cepheus Seal[edit]

An article on a weapon from a video game. Very little content, article has been tagged "unclear" and "nn" since June, no real-world content. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very NN. Not even mentioned in the main Soul article. No sources so also fail WP:V. meshach 15:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete as it is not notable in the least bit. The only reason it should be saved from speedy is because it asserts notability by being a weapon from a notable series. TonyBallioni 17:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 14:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn Confederation[edit]

Heavy in universe plot summary about a fictional race of lizards. Article does not any cite reliable sources as evidence of notability outside the game from which it derives. Gavin Collins 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate notability and sourcing. Colonel Warden 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is NOT adequate. ALL sources are to the works of fiction that contain this group. There are ZERO sources to any independent reliable sources, and thus fails WP:FICT requirements that an article be about a fictional element that has a real world perspective. No evidence that ANY real-world perspective exists for this group, so the article should be deleted. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The references still seem good enough to me, being highly authoritative. But since you're shouting so loudly, I've just been through my piles of dusty magazines to add another one.Colonel Warden 18:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the sources lack independence which is what is needed; they are to the actual works of fiction rather than to some source unconnected to said works of fiction. if you have those magazines where the subject is discussed, and can provide those references, that would be very helpful. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn, Gorn, gone. Unnotable. Clarityfiend 23:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - even I remember the Gorn. That was the big dinosaur that Kirk fought, right? He used gunpowder to kill the thing. The fight scene was referenced in an episode of Family Guy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series. The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page. Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. [9] I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited. When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging. Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see [10] for the Klingon Empire AfD and [11] for the Romulan Star Empire AfD). I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged. At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines. A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination. To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game. I noticed there is a history of this (see [12] for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives. While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to. Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is 'not Gorn] which covers the appearance of the race in Star Trek but rather about the derived group in the Star Fleet Universe which is rather less notable. I believe that a delete is appropriate because this is already adequately covered in other places but won't strenuously object to a merge to Races of the Star Fleet Universe or a similar article. Eluchil404 22:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petz (TV Series)[edit]

No sources offered in article to confirm notability (or existance). Gsearch doesn't turn up a series of this name on Cartoon Network, no entry in IMDb. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a hoax. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Doctorfluffy 19:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like User:Danny Daniel is back yet again. JuJube 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avena Lee[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep This article does pass WP:BIO. Under this section, it states that pornographic actors are notable if they have been featured in mainstream media multiple times. I think staring in over 100 films is suitable. Icestorm815 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainstream means non-porn. Epbr123 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. Delete That was the only reason I sided for keep. Following points are valid. Icestorm815 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Number of appearances as a measure of notability for pornographic actors has been abandoned - for a while this was in the list of "questionable criteria" for notability, then later revised to be "invalid", on the ground that "Pornographic films can be made in a few days, thus performers can appear in dozens of films per year". It does not appear in the current draft of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. There is nothing in the Avena Lee articles which offers any assertion that she meets any of the general criteria for notability nor any of the specific criteria for pornographic actors. If she has been featured multiple times in mainstream media and someone can add reliable sources to that affect, then keep. --Stormie 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability found. No WP:RS cited. • Gene93k 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability, no coverage, no interest. Valrith 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tabercil 23:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was yes, keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

It is disputed whether or not there should be an article about "no", as some have claimed this is nothing more than a dictionary definition. However, we do currently have an article about "yes". This was originally brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I'm moving it over here and unredirecting for now so a discussion about the article can occur. I have no opinion. --- RockMFR 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wikipedia is not a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. This not on only violates WP:Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, it also violates WP:NOT.--SJP 14:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is an article about the meaning, origins and usage of a word. It has no encyclopedic content beyond that traditionally found in an unabridged dictionary (plus some trivia that doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia article either). I see no possibility of expansion past the purely lexical content. Note: Once transwiki is complete, either replace with a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page or return the contents of no (disambiguation) to this location. Rossami (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO, there is the possibility that the article may develop beyond the lexical definition. --gala.martin (what?) 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer to wikitionary. This is just a dict def, not an encyclopedia entry. meshach 15:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article goes beyond the definition, and I feel it can also be expanded beyond the lexical context Carter | Talk to me 16:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does go beyond the dictionary definition, and it is feasible to write a longer article on the subject. Hut 8.5 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since there's an article called yes, why not keep this one? If no is deleted, might as well delete yes. As above said, very commonly used word, also interesting article. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While wikipedia is not a dictionary, it does and should contain entries on words where such words can support an encylopedic article. This one is likely to have enough information to be expanded into an encyclopedia article, and such should be kept. Not every word in existance will be able to do this, but this one clearly will, and thus should be kept. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Hut. jj137 (Talk) 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Jayron32. Barsportsunlimited 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No to deleting No aka keep, one of the most used words in the English language, this article also has content beyond a dictionary definition and could most definitely be expanded. TonyBallioni 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Jayron32 and the fact that yes has an article.--Cartman005 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On deleting this article, I say no. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as dic def which can't be expanded, most of the keep voters had no good reasoning for keeping the article. This is a Secret ^account 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes~~. No (to deletion). Yes is clearly fleshed out and interesting. I see no reason why no should not be of similar potential. --Gwern (contribs) 21:16 3 November 2007 (GMT)
Keep, there is plenty that can be said about words that is not suitable for a dictionary. John Vandenberg 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best article but more than a dicdef or dab. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the potential to be expanded more than a dicdef (It has an arts section already, although a culture section would be better). It might become the next thou too bad I can't help develop the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. The necessary companion to our article on yes. There are doubtlessly famous "no's" in history, and the article has potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
( ﾟ³ﾟ)三№♥ tgies 00:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost everyone. JuJube 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's an encyclopedic subject, though what is presently there hardly justifies it. JJL 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who made the redirect in the first place. I honestly see nothing here of value. There's the definition of the word, an explination it's a "refusal skill" (can be merged to Just Say No or refusal skills, it's not really about the word "no"), "Political No's" (makes no sense), and "Saying no in the arts" (that's a pop culture trivia section in disguise). Delete this article, move the disambig page back. And I say do the same to yes as well. --UsaSatsui 15:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just don't know about you! Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES and almost everyone above. Bearian 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This article contravenes WP:NOT as stated by SJP. The article has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the linkage between the essay, songs, television programs or films listed.--Gavin Collins 23:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, being the one who expanded the article to try to make it an encyclopedic article. The current state is not satisfactory but the article has potential. There were new edits last days that I think indicate we together can make it a better article. As far as I can see from the amount of discussion here, there are quite a few people thinking about the article now. Let's say yes to no and edit! --Brz7 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Drake Circus Shopping Centre[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note this may be a bad-faith nomination [13]. ELIMINATORJR 14:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irrespective of whether it's bad faith, this is a small shopping centre in a not especially big place. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~: The sooner this article disappears down the pan the better. Its notability is in question even though the nominator's comment "based mostly on old news stories" means that it has actually had press coverage. The cost of the disruption to WP that this and its associated article (Drake Circus has caused outweighs its usefulness to the project. It most certainly is a bad faith nomination as well as a WP:POINT making exercise, but that doesn't detract from the fact that the place is a nonentity in global terms. ---- WebHamster 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Change of mind. After seeing some of the comments here and doing some Google searches (144,000 hits on ""drake circus" -drakecircus.com"). In fact it's looking like it should be the Drake Circus article that's up for AfD, not this one. I couldn't find anything about Drake Circus on Google that wasn't related to the shopping centre. ---- WebHamster 12:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'comment' if i may quote you from a comment you posted on a discussion page 'wikipedia is not google'. In any event on googles first page we have [14] or [15] but as you say wikipedia is not google.81.155.65.71 14:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- — 81.155.65.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment: then the vandals will find another article they don't like: "nonentity in global terms" could apply to the vast majority of people/places that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. - Snigbrook 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the first half, but I agree with the second half of what Snigbrook writes. Consider this, etc. etc. -- Hoary 09:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak and conditional delete~~ Only claim to notability, if any, is its badness; if the opinion that it was an unparallelled atrocity were a published article rather than a website, I would support keeping this. Otherwise: there is a shopping centre; it has had cash flow problems; the neighbours object. Dog bites man. Include in the article on the neighborhood, if at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My condition has been met, so Keep or Merge. On the whole, I would prefer to see much of this condensed into Drake Circus, and some rewritten into an article on the Carbuncles Prize, which would of course keep the picture. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WebHamster and Septentrionalis. Notability is shakey at best and someone needs to take away these bored students' soapbox. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Drake Circus. Sufficient notability but not sure of need for two articles. Snigbrook 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the shopping centre seems to be notable, maybe the Drake Circus article should be merged into this and other articles. Snigbrook 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: actually the Drake Circus article is useless, as its purpose seems to be an attempt to prove a point that Drake Circus is an area that does not include the adjacent Drake Circus Shopping Centre. Snigbrook 16:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Drake Circus article is (or will be)an attempt to publish an account of a district that among other things brings together a rich variety of scientific, cultural, academic and historical institutions and values. The mall is not in the same area so you may just as well merge it into an article on Sir Francis Drake or Chipperfield Circus. Its only connection is the similarity of the name (its like merging an article on Paris Hilton into an article on Paris)Nicole 50dc 20:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC) — Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete its contents are not verified as the 'official' site it refers to contains no or completely different facts. It is completely unheard of outside Plymouth and the references to the BBC links are extremely localized and old news. There also seems to be an issue/dispute over the use of an unlicensed logo/trademark which does inclusion of this article justify. As for 'merge' it is not in the Drake Cicus district and has nothing to with it other than sharing a similar name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.155.198 (talk) 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has, rather bizarrely, complained to himself about legal threats; otherwise, his edits are very few and devoted to this shopping centre. -- Hoary 12:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the course of trying to link to their terms and conditions page on their website it was mysteriously taken down and replaced with a pop-up. It then left my original post stranded with no reference. I tried to explain this on my user page but i admit not very well which is why i changed it. For obvious reasons i cannot and will not discuss my correspondence with other third parties. It seems more than a coincidence that their site was being rapidly changed last night/this morning when web archives will confirm that no pages had been updated for nearly a year and it seems obvious that whoever is operating that site is closely monitoring anything said on this site. In any event what has any of this to do with my original post other than your attempts to yet again divert or flame the orginal subject matter being discussed.
    - No, it was just a standard sock-puppet warning for the benefit of whoever closes this AfD. Meanwhile, enjoy your conspiracy theories but don't assume that they interest other people. -- Hoary 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In support of its (unwanted!) notability I've added to the article another link about the "truly awful" design, this one from The Times; and clarified that the Carbuncle Cup is awarded by Building Design, which is "the UKs best-read architectural weekly with a circulation in excess of 25,000, thats 70% of all architects across the UK."[16] --Smalljim 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep 5 references, at least two of which are both from RSs and substantial. That's more than most shopping centers. The nomination is apparently a dispute between whether the name applies to the area, the shopping enter, or the university located there. For documentation see the talk page of the article--where the various parties attempt to accuse each other of libel and other legal issues. See further the comments of WebHamster at the user page of one of the people who made the threats. [17]. (he has already been blocked for it by another admin). This should be speedy kept as an obvious bad faith and disruptive nomination. DGG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The main reference is the drake circus.com site which itself states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006." Either it is out of date or it is accurate - either way it does not reconcile with any of the facts stated in the article. The other references relate to minor local news which again are out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicole 50dc (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

make up your mind! In the discussion pages webhamster said

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

o.k. so if it is a stub from Drake_circus- My point is to make it a stub from shopping malls 81.155.65.71 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. W.marsh 17:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posh and Becks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Rationale: This is a tabloid neologism more worthy of the tabloid journalism which generated it than an encyclopaedia. (Note that User:Bumm13 is the actual nominator.) Orderinchaos 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though I'm not a fan, I acknowledge that they are probably more notable as a couple than as individuals and hence worthy of inclusion as such here. WWGB 12:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the absolute worst this should be moved to "David and Victoria Beckham" or some more suitable title. We are not Woman's Day or The Sun. Orderinchaos 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is just I don't like it. Article has excellent sourcing and notability. The current title is essential in explaining the rhyming slang aspect. Colonel Warden 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the reason for maintaining it, note that that falls more within Wiktionary's scope than ours - we're not a dictionary. Orderinchaos 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Delete. There is nothing noteworthy about this couple as a couple -- individually, they are notable and have articles about them, but together, there's not really anything to say about them except hey, they're together. It is conceivable that this could be turned into a disambiguation page (to the two of them, obviously), even though I don't particularly like the idea, due to the dismal inefficiency of the wiki's search capabilities. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't say that these two are not notable as a couple. Their couple aspect is one of the most notable things about them, as the term clearly demonstrates. "Posh and Becks" isn't just any celebrity duo term/nickname, and their union is treated as if they are King and Queen, with the media often calling them a supercouple, power couple, and other types of "Oh, they are the 'it' couple" names. Sure, they don't act as superheroes together, off trying to save every dying child, but they are a notable couple. Flyer22 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you haven't demonstrated as to how they are notable. The media "coins" phrases and "concepts" all the time. Wikipedia doesn't include such topics in the non-entertainment realm. Why not? Wikipedia doesn't because it is not a news outlet. Concepts about specific "supercouples" falls into the domain of tabloids and entertainment news. Thus, terms used to describe such nebulous entertainment trends and fads are neologisms. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that I haven't shown that the term is notable. I have, and so do the sources. Concepts about specific supercouples are allowed to be included on Wikipedia, when they are notable enough, whether they are a fad or not. Most everything can be considered a fad, but that does make it any less notable. In some years, the phrase "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" may be considered a fad, but that doesn't make it any less notable. The term Posh and Becks isn't so much of a fad anyway, I'd say, as Stormie points out below. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the most notable things about them"? More notable than being captain of a national football (soccer) team, being the most highly-paid footballer in the world, having a movie named after him, having fistfuls of hit single ...? - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I said one of the most notable. Yes. Flyer22 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very common term applied to them a as a couple, at least in the UK media. Ben W Bell talk 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Yes, it has sources... but we have articles about them seperately as people, and this seems kinda unnecessary... although it's a well known phrase...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to David and Victoria Beckham Carter | Talk to me 16:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't solve the problem of notability in this instance. Such a move would only weasel around the problem of using neologisms. In order for David and Victoria Beckham to have their own article, the duo has to be notable outside of their individual notabilities. This works fine for Sonny and Cher; it doesn't work in this instance. Bumm13 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I stated on my talk page, this article does satisfy Wikipedia criteria for inclusion when it is notable. This is a term, neologism or not, that has had a lot of exposure and impact. If the term is worthy enough to be entered into dictionaries, then it is worthy enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is all about notability, and this term is definitely notable. Flyer22 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as stated by Jonathan Bowen in the first deletion debate for this article, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001, so I believe that this term is no longer a neologism." Flyer22 18:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term is very well established and notable in British culture (including in print) and the article is well referenced. The title is important because it is a rhyming slang term. — Jonathan Bowen 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not well referenced. Of the five references, one is from a PR press release site, one is from a clearinghouse site and one is the couples' own website, none of which satisfy WP:RS. The other two are not about the term "Posh and Becks"; they merely use the term and per WP:NEO that's not good enough. Otto4711 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This may be WP:WAX, but consider the fact that we have articles on Lennon/McCartney and The Glimmer Twins, to quote two of my favourite bands, that deal with people who are linked to one another (although obviously not in the same sense as Posh and Becks) and those have not been nominated for deletion... yet.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources that show this term is notable. Using the term makes it valid, but not notable. So delete. i (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No sources that show this term is notable? The article surely does, as others have cited above, and as was the reason why this article was kept before. If a celebrity couple name being entered into the Collins Concise English Dictionary, as well as becoming a term that encompasses a culture, isn't notable, then I don't know what celebrity couple name is. Flyer22 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckam and Victoria Beckam were put in the dictionary, the name "Posh and Becks" was not. i (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where does it say that the term Posh and Becks was not entered into the dictionary? The source here states, "News correspondent Kate Adie and actor Ronnie Barker are some of the famous names removed from the new Collins Concise English Dictionary to make way for David and Victoria Beckham. As well as new celebrities making it into dictionary there is a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted."[19] David Beckam and Victoria Beckam is not a famous/notable expression. "Posh and Becks" is. And this source here...[20]...shows that the term is included to mean sex. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it not say the term Posh and Becks? Well, I don't know to answer that; in the article? It says that Kate Adie and Ronnie Barker were replaced by David and Victoria Beckham, not Posh and Becks. You still have not shown me a source that shows that "Posh and Becks" is a notable expression. i (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not shown you? The sources above, as well as other sources within this article, clearly showcase the term as notable. Whether you don't feel that it is notable is your opinion, I suppose. The article states that those two were entered into the dictionary, and the title of that article refers to the term Posh and Becks. I don't see how an assumption can be drawn that the phrase that was entered into the dictionary was David and Victoria Beckham, when that is not the phrase/term that captivated British culture. And when the article mentions that a whole crop of phrases and street slang that have been adopted have been included within that dictionary. It surely shows that they are entered there in that second source. You have not shown me that this term doesn't warrant its own article. Nothing can change my mind on this matter. And it seems your feelings are set on this matter as well, so I agree to disagree with you on this. Flyer22 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title is Posh and Becks, but assuming that "Posh and Becks", not "David Beckham" and "Victoria Beckham" was put in (as the article implies) is unfounded, and to do so would be original research without the actual dictionary confirming it. Using the term does not making something notable. The second source proves (maybe) that the term "Posh and Becks" being about sex is notable, not it being about David and Victoria. So the article here would need to be about that. But I agree, we are stuck on this issue, and barring any other sources, will not have a change of opinion. i (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing original research that the term that was put into that dictionary was Posh and Becks and not David Beckham and Victoria Beckham. The second source even demonstrates as much. That second source, while showing that it has also come to mean sex, is the term Posh and Becks. It is about the couple, in that it was this couple that gave way to the term being referred to as whatever it is referred to as in English culture. It means more than one thing, but is a result of this couple's popularity. This article doesn't just address the term being about this couple, but other aspects of the term's popularity, and it can be expanded. Again, we don't agree, but everyone cannot agree on everything in deletion debates. Flyer22 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whether or not the phrase is in a dictionary is irrelevant, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's nothing here that can't be covered in about one sentence in each of the individual's articles. "David Beckham married Victoria 'Posh Spice' Adams in 1999 and the couple is often referred to in the tabloid press by the nickname 'Posh and Becks'." Boom. Everything you need to know about the nickname. Otto4711 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Disagree. The term is not just about whether or not it was entered into the dictionary. It's about whether or not the term is notable, and it is. We say Wikipedia is not a dictionary, yet we have plenty of words on Wikipedia that can be found in dictionaries. This term actually encompasses a whole culture, this from just a celebrity couple name. It doesn't get more notable than that for a term. Flyer22 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake. Of course you disagree; your obsession with the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. The term does not "encompass a whole culture." That's just a ridiculous thing to say, and I note that the article's claim that it does is tagged as unsourced. It illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people, each of whom already have extensive articles on WIkipedia, and this article merely regurgitates information that is (or should be) already in their articles. Do we need "Posh and Becks" to inform us that they're married and bought a big house and are now in America? No. Otto4711 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. I thought/think the exact same thing about you...except the other way around. Your obsession with deleting the detritus of pop culture doesn't allow you to do anything but disagree. And I see you still love to be uncivil, especially when a deletion debate isn't going your way. I have no obsession with popular culture, just because I don't believe that any of the supercouple articles should be deleted from Wikipedia...and I edit those articles, or just because a topic has a lot to do with popular culture that it should be deleted from Wikipedia. You base "my obsession" with popular culture on the fact that I disagree with you a great deal on supercouple articles, because that's mainly the only type of popular culture you've seen me in. Your assertion is false. As for Posh and Becks, it is not ridiculous to say that the term encompasses a whole culture. As for that being tagged as unsourced? It was only tagged during this deletion debate as unsourced. And I'm sure that it can be sourced, though I'm not sourcing it for you. You always say "it illustrates a tabloid fascination with two people", tabloid this, popular culture that, and I don't agree with you. The term is notable, therefore I see nothing wrong with it being on Wikipedia. That's just how it is. I mostly see your nominations of these types of articles as I don't like it. You know that we usually don't agree, and we aren't going to agree here. Flyer22 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not a neologism (as stated in previous discussion, "the term has been in use since the late 1990s and was included in the Collins Concise English Dictionary in 2001"). Certainly do not rename to "David and Victoria Beckham" or any other such construction, Wikipedia:Naming conventions states "article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". That is "Posh and Becks". --Stormie 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Talentless airheads they may be but this term has been used about a billion times in the British press. Nick mallory 23:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, they may be talentless together but David Beckham is an accomplished football (soccer) player. =) Bumm13 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can't argue with that, Bumm. Flyer22 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NEO. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. The number of times the tabloid press of England uses the term is irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources that are about the term. Otto4711 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll remember to contact Jonathan Bowen about that. Flyer22 04:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable due to dictionary inclusion, as title of joint biography, as template for other celebrity couples, and as Cockney rhyming slang. --Dhartung | Talk 05:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even an arch-enemy of pop-culture trivia such as myself can't acrgue with the notability here. The article could certainly be improved, though. ELIMINATORJR 19:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, EliminatorJR, good to see you. Glad you voiced your thoughts on this. Flyer22 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, as I have seen no evidence that the phrase "Posh and Becks" has any notability outside the notability of the INDIVIDUALS involved. Sonny and Cher were notable AS "Sonny and Cher", mainly because of their variety show. What have David Beckham and Posh Spice done AS A DUO that merits keeping this article? Wikipedia is not a pop culture dictionary. K. Scott Bailey 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The phrase is included in the 2001 Collins Concise English Dictionary. It is Cockney rhyming slang as well as being a widely used British phrase in its own right (see article references). Wikipedia should include notable popular culture encyclopedic entries. — Jonathan Bowen 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of the biography Posh and Becks by Andrew Morton qualifies both the couple and the phrase as notable. Phil Bridger 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does that make the phrase notable? And that link is dead, you may want to check it. I (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. Maybe I should have worded that a bit differently. The existence of the joint biography establishes the couple as being notable as a couple, not just individually. That justifies having an article about them. To decide on the name of the article WP:MOSBIO#Names says the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known. The book title is one piece of evidence that they are more commonly known as a couple as Posh and Becks rather than David and Victoria Beckham. Phil Bridger 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 13:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Heart[edit]

This article about a research project does not include the reliable sources that would show its notability. The jargon-laden tone could be written by someone who speaks Medical, but it's only worth the effort if this is indeed a notable project. Prod removed without comment or improvement by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, unsourced, unencyclopedic jargon.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Cardiac surgery. JuJube 02:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Cruz[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 12:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. A7.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xudun[edit]

I found this while working on another AFD nomination on a Somali topic. The page's creator has been blocked twice, but still refuses to edit in English.

I'm not sure what or who or where Xudun is, but based on Google it looks like it's a town or settlement in the Somali state of Nugaal. A search at the Somali Wikipedia shows the word 'xudun' in only one page, which is titled 'Gadabursi traditional history' – I don't know what the page says, but it's there. It was listed at WP:PNT for three weeks, but apparently there's no one here who speaks Somali.

I bring it here per procedure at WP:PNT. I don't think it's going to get translated. KrakatoaKatie 12:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless in the very unlikely event of someone being able to translate it. They're too busy with perpetual civil war and extreme poverty there for translating things on Wikipedia, I guess... although someone of Somalian background resident in another country might know. It's not much information anyway.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have seen a number of edits from Somali ISPs, FWIW. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete Incomprehensible. Colonel Warden 13:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in lieu of an English translation, and apparent lack of an article at Somali Wikipedia. Comment: There are plenty of Somali editors on English Wikipedia (check edit history of the articles in Category:Somali clans). This author has only edited in the Somali language, despite warnings against doing so, and in spite of having directions to the Somali Wikipedia. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the somali wikipedia. That being said I can't even say for sure that what is on that page is a real language. Bobby1011 17:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently a real place; our article on the Sool district of Somalia mentions it, along with a spelling variant Hudun. Likely a real language, too; at least there seems to be a consistent orthography and some repeated words and evidence of grammar, and the article, as predicted, mentions Sool. But in the absence of someone able to interpret this and turn it into a valid stub, there's no point in retaining this text on the English Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön 23:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the English wikipedia. Nick mallory 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with user above. I don't think I'd be looking for articles in other languages in the ENGLISH wikipedia. degmo means community no clue what everything else means Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 01:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick mallory. Do not transwiki this article unless a Somali-speaking editor confirms that it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. For all we (non-Somali-speakers) know, the article could be advertising or a conflict of interest or otherwise inappropriate for the Somali Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick mallory. --AliceJMarkham 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as housekeeping. Per GFDL the page histories need to be merged. Where the page ends up after a merge is a naming issue, and would require a page move, not a deletion.

Carlyle (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Page is a copy of Luke Carlyle Printer222 11:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC). This article is the same however it is more apropriate to be in the "Luke Carlyle" section as this is the full name of the character and the article nominated has a title which is the last name of the character.[reply]

~~Redirect~~ per nom, Though Luke Carlyle might be a candidate to move to Luke Carlyle (Comics). ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Revolving Bugbear. Agreed. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Luke Carlyle and then Move Carlyle (Marvel Comics) to there. Carlyle is the original article and Luke Carlyle is a copyover of it. Luke Carlyle is the correct name of this article; however, according to the GFDL, the page history needs to be preserved with the text, so Carlyle needs to be moved there. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles--this one is probably the better spot to be merged to,, with a redirect at the latter. JJL 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Luke Carlyle and move Carlyle (Marvel Comics) following Revolving Bugbear. (Emperor 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bushidokan Federation[edit]

Notability and a walled garden. Lots of high ranks mentioned again and again but all in orgnaizations founded by the (you guessed it) the founder. Google hits on different variations dont give up very much Peter Rehse 11:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletions. —Peter Rehse 12:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Single source (the federation itself), no matter how oft it is cited, doesn't say anything towards notability. Rather spammy, I don't see that this is encyclopaedic. /Blaxthos 11:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that if the other federations listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzan_Ryu are afforded pages, then this one should also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.89.10 (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are two distinct reasons for those articles existing. 1) They are about NOTABLE federations, which thus deserve articles, while this one is a NON-NOTABLE federation, and thus needs no article or 2) They deserve to be deleted too as non-notable themselves. Neither of these possible reasons excuses this article of its shortcomings, and notability requires that an article be referenced to independant reliable sources.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentEven so all but one of those dont have there own article - just a link to a website. They would not survive here either. Small Circle Jujutsu (the only exception) is very notable in its own right.Peter Rehse 10:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, as no independent sources are cited. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cites only to primary sources, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, ad, lack of WP:RS. JJL 23:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Doctorfluffy 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Paritran[edit]

Possibly non-notable... you decide. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Google news search shows a few recent articles, one of which claims 20,000 members, which seems notable for a two year old party. The reason I say "weak" is that I'm not 100% convinced of the veracity of all this. CitiCat^♫ 05:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 10:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep - Hovering on the brink, I'm going to err on the side of caution and assume good faith that the single source (The Times of India) is a reliable source. /Blaxthos 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting note - As noted on the Main Page, The Times of India was founded today (3 November) in 1838. /Blaxthos 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've made a fast control, and it is talked of by another well known Indian paper, The Hindu[21]. The party has fielded candidates, and seems to have a national organization. Just by The Hindu, the party obtains mention in 43 articles, having obtained surprisingly good results in the Tamil Nadu elections in 2006. [22]--Aldux 17:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is quite notable. Plenty of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources are available. The article just needs some references. utcursch | talk 15:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (StarCraft)[edit]

This article is plot summary with a heavy in universe perspective, and has no reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional race outside of the computer game they are derived from. Gavin Collins 09:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as gamecruft. /Blaxthos 11:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:NOT#PLOT and unlikely reliable secondary sources can be found to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Axem Titanium 20:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thought, transwiki to http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page if possible, if not Delete Icestorm815 20:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not necessary, as I think it came from there originally, as the similarity between the WP and SP versions is striking [23].--Gavin Collins 22:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as someone who is a strong supporter of SC and SC articles, I can say without bias that unless the Hybrid is central to StarCraft II, there will never be any hope for this article to be sourced or notable. The Clawed One 05:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tangled Up. As article is already redirected, this is a non-admin closure. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Speak French[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Can't Speak French

Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Firstly, WP:V states "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Based on this statement alone, this article should not exist. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have not found any reliable sources that claim that this song is to be released. Therefore, if this article fails both WP:N and WP:V, it automatically fails WP:MUSIC, which it does, as this article doesn't meet this criteria. — *H ippi ippi 07:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to Tangled Up, if the single is released and content becomes available to the article (e.g. chart positions, critical reception), turn it back into an article. --Stormie 07:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Modla 09:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though it looks like that's already happened. This can probably close. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article has been redirected [24] - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anton Golovaty. --Polaron | Talk 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Holovaty[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There's an Anton Holovaty who is remembered for a land cession to the Cossacks from Catherine the Great, but no poet that I can find. --Dhartung | Talk 08:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect per Irpen below. Golovaty is the more common transliteration, apparently. Looks like some WP:POINT-y activity. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not being verifiable, possible hoax. The author of this page should have taken care to cite sources of some kind in order to prevent deletion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the entry, as a redirect to Anton Golovaty and merge content there. The article is not a hoax but a WP:Pointy forky creation of an entry under a different name by a user. In fact it is a second attempt, see also Antin Holovaty, now also a redirect. --Irpen 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Irpen. --Brewcrewer 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by user:Caknuck as an attack page (CSD G10). Non-admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bosworth[edit]

Seems to be a hoax... Neutrality^talk 06:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unverifiable article with no sources and serious WP:BLP problems. --Metropolitan90 08:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims in the article prevent an A7, but they seem to be not real. --Dhartung | Talk 08:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Also possibility that this is a libelous attack page in which case speedy would apply. • nancy • 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly inappropriate. A7 probably doesn't apply. /Blaxthos 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong/snowball delete per everyone, not verifiable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete tag placed on the article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have restored the AfD and DB tags, but removed the 'hoax' mention, as hoax is not a criterion for speedy deletion. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animoto[edit]

Notable? Neutrality^talk 06:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only if you like potted meat. /Blaxthos 12:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. 574,000 google hits (although that's a poor measure of notability especially for a web-based subject).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Blaxthos. jj137 (Talk) 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime fandom in Britain[edit]

"This is one person's view of the timeline..." Neutrality^talk 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one seems to fall under original research as an essay or perhaps even a soapbox. Useight 06:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cleanup, cite and rename. "United Kingdom" would be preferable if this article was going to stay. Assuming it wasn't copied from somewhere - a couple selected quotes couldn't yield any search engine results, but that doesn't rule it out - it needs significant work and citations. Maybe someone can salvage it? I've not researched it to verify anything, it definitely could be useful though. Modla 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable original research. Someone's term paper... /Blaxthos 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or cleanup per Modla. It could be an encyclopedic topic, but at the moment the article itself is unencyclopedic as appearing to have large amounts of WP:OR.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup, and cite. As stated on the page, this was created for those involved in anime fandom in Britain to place their (verifiable) thoughts on. It has been in place for less than a month so it is perhaps premature to talk of "salvaging" or deleting it. Murphy's Lawyer 22:09, 6 November 2007 (GMT/Zulu)

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anderson Primary School[edit]

Non-notable school. No references to independant sources provided. No assertions of notability. It only avoids an A7 speedy by being exempted from speedies by being a school. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Modla 09:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:N concerns / no references. /Blaxthos 12:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. If it is possible to create a sourced article, then one can be written from scratch. This is a typical example of the sort of poor writing that crops up all the time because Wikipedia is so open.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amruss[edit]

Non-notable. Neutrality^talk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A fictional substance from an obscure short story? Non-notable in the extreme. • nancy • 10:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Nancy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TheCoolestDude 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus defaulting to keep. Further details of this case should be discussed in WP:BIO. --Polaron | Talk 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Kaepernick[edit]

The subject is a college football player who started his first game ten days before this article was created. While this game apparently received a fair deal of media attention, the notability of the subject is not supported by any reliable sources. Although I am not 100% clear on the policy for college atheletes, I did some digging around and found that notability at the college level seems to hinge on the individual being recognized by an organization or third party as a particularly notable player. I'll conceed that recognition may be in this young man's future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and a lack of notability here in the present means that this article should be deleted and only recreated when the subject attains true notability.

In the interest of disclosure, I would also like to note that I nominated this article for CSD, and the admin who rejected my request suggested either prod or AfD in his edit summary. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, college athlete, participating in one notable game doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. NawlinWiki 17:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:BIO's criteria for athletes: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." It is generally accepted that in the U.S., playing for a college team qualifies as playing/competing at the highest level in amateur sports. Also, it is quite likely that there are secondary sources that can be used to cite the article, as he appears to be a key figure in a rather notable game. (A quick Google search seems to turn up quite a few, in fact.) LaMenta3 18:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article appears to establish sufficient notable and should be able to be expanded. Reliable sources appear to exist, even though they aren't currently cited. Karanacs 18:32, 2 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, KrakatoaKatie 10:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per lamenta Barsportsunlimited 17:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are two professional football leagues in the US. Thus a college player needs to have something particularly significant to warrant an article. Subject doesn't meet that, although it's a decent probability he will. Horrorshowj 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Hussain[edit]

Notable? Neutrality^talk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to pass notability either for professors or for authors. Nyttend 13:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to satisfy WP:PROF. shoeofdeath 04:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship, JMFI[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Fails WP:ORG and doesn't have any search results outside of its own websites (see here). Auroranorth (sign) 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. jj137 (Talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTE, WP:V, and WP:SOAPBOX. ---Brewcrewer 04:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Brewcrewer; also Nonsense as it is currently written. Bearian 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Did anyone else notice the Pastor's own Wiki article? Jacksinterweb 21:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#A7. Kusma (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzlina[edit]

Article describes a neologism surrounding the "The Emporer's [sic] New School" TV series. It refers to a YouTube user as "possibly originally" coining the term, with a link to the user's channel page. Neologism seems to be rather non-notable. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've flagged it for speedy deletion on grounds of not asserting notability (db-nn). Michaelbusch 06:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't return any search results out of specialised forums and YouTube videos. The article doesn't even belong here (see WP:NOT#DICTIONARY). Auroranorth (sign) 06:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:CSD#G3. east.718 at 17:26, 11/3/2007

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kelley t hood

Kelley t hood[edit]

The subject of this article is not verifiable since it has no sources nor can sources be found. Seems to be a hoax. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely hoax on its face value. I have a hard time believing that ANY civil war General doesn't already have an article here (there weren't that many General officers in EITHER army during the war.) Interestingly, I turned up a John Bell Hood that appears to MAYBE be the general this article is refering to, however this may be a coincidence and this article is likely total bullshit. Just in the interest of due dilligence, a google seach turns up bubkiss. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, impossible for man to have existed with all records lost, as they must have been if he's real and nothing's to be found. Nyttend 13:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete, obviously. No point in wasting our time over this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utter WP:BALLS. Hedging a bet on a vandalism speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax, obviously. TGreenburgPR 15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True Family Values[edit]

Non-notable concept within an organization. Article contains no references and appears to be copied and pasted. Sfacets 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – perhaps deserves a mention at the page about the church, but is not otherwise notable. --jacobolus (t) 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Auroranorth (sign) 06:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not valuable in any way to the encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable concept. No reliable and independent sources. Bearian 17:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all. There is a clear consensus from this debate that the articles shouldn't exist. The delete arguments didn't show any adversity to being redirected, and hence I have redirected them all without deleting in case someone wants to use some of the content behind the redirects (can still be accessed in the article's history) in the main list. Daniel 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Mayfair[edit]

In-universe article (see WP:WAF) about non-notable fictional character. Subject hasn't had the time yet to become notable per WP:FICT. Crazy Legs KC 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating these other Desperate Housewives character articles:[reply]

My reasoning is pretty much the same as the thoughts I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misc Pushing Daisies articles. The show itself is undoubtedly notable, but none of these characters seem to have enough real-world context to be considered notable per WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Some of them, like Dylan, Adam, Bob, and Lee, were introduced just in the past couple weeks, also making them a WP:CRYSTAL issue, some of them are too minor to merit their own articles (such as Travers, Phyllis, Justin, Kayla, Parker, Porter & Preston, and Ida), and none of them really attempt to establish notability by presenting real-world context--probably because most of them don't really have any. We'd be better off, IMHO, without so many of these individual, in-universe articles, and with an improved single character list. Note that some of the other character articles may be worthy of deletion as well; I just nominated these for now because they're the ones I'm pretty sure of (I didn't nominate any of the "major" starring characters). --Crazy Legs KC 05:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Desperate Housewives characters. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think {{merge}} should have been used instead of going to AfD. (I am unfamiliar with the show about these characters' notability. I'd lean to merge but the character list is already >50kB and would either need trimming or an encyclopedic split-up – an editorial issue outside the scope of AfD). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect/merge Since editors propose to reorganise this material, it is not appropriate to delete them. Colonel Warden 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They should probably make backup copies for that purpose. — RJH (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as articles have no primary or reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability of these fictional characters outside of the televison show. --Gavin Collins 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vote fails WP:VAGUEWAVE. Please explain your rationale better than this. You are not saying how these policies are being violated. Canjth 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Gavin's !vote is prretty clear. These characters have no reliably sourced statements regarding their notability. While they may be important to the show, unless you can point to reliable, third-party sources that say why they're important, then the articles fail notability as fictional characters. Simple as that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Gavin. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Gavin. --Fredrick day 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your rationale for deleting all of these characters instead of just saying you agree with someone. This looks like sock puppetry although I have no proof. Please see WP:PERNOM and WP:JUSTAVOTE to see why I am saying your votes currently have little value in this discussion. Canjth 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing to establish that they have any coverage beyond the show. Nuttah68 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So if the new characters like Bob and Lee establish themselves to be important characters, would their articles be recreated? Also, they've garnered some press for being the first gay couple on Wisteria Lane, so I don't know if that makes them notable enough or not. --Silvestris 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect brief summaries to List of Desperate Housewives characters. They can be split off again if they demonstrate greater notability. — RJH (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no indication of notability per significant coverage from secondary sources per WP:FICT. Unlikely such sources exist for minor characters. Doctorfluffy 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, no individual notability. Axem Titanium 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect/merge all to List of Desperate Housewives characters; content is important enough to have articles created in the first place so deleting seems a waste of resources and energy. As list develop it will be easy to see which characters build usable content/notability compared to the rest. Benjiboi 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to list article per WP:FICT. Otto4711 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Desperate Housewives characters. Benjiboi 15:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of Desperate Housewives characters article has survived AfD. Benjiboi 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bob Hunter (Desperate Housewives) and Lee McDermott per WP:FICT, which states that articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop. Timeineurope 13:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC) – Keep all those listed as "main characters" at Template:Desperate Housewives: Kayla Huntington, George Williams (Desperate Housewives), Matthew Applewhite, Caleb Applewhite, Preston and Porter Scavo, Parker Scavo and Austin McCann (Desperate Housewives). Timeineurope 12:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are you people crazy????? I am so not gonna donate anything here if this actually happens. These are lovable characters of alovable show, and someone (incl. myself) made the effort to create all these pages. DO NOT DELETE! friendoffelix 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fancruft that fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. 22:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep Some of these characters play/have played a really important part in the show! Austin McCann, Victor Lang‎, Nora Huntington‎, Matthew Applewhite‎, Ian Hainsworth‎ & Felicia Tilman been extremely notable & main characters!--Hiltonhampton 18:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable in the show, perhaps, but not notable in the real world. Wikipedia is a real-world encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Crazy Legs KC 18:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe you haven't noticed, but real people in the real world watch the show!--Hiltonhampton 22:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But that by itself doesn't make all these characters notable. Real people also watch Guiding Light, but that doesn't mean we need a separate article for each one of the hundreds (possibly thousands?) of characters it has had since it started. --Crazy Legs KC 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We do it for soap operas! think of all the hundreds of characters in Coronation Street that may have never even had a scene, but still they all have pages.--Hiltonhampton 15:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse. If the Coronation Street character pages should be deleted or merged, then let's get them deleted or merged. Don't use them as an alibi for more wrong articles. Otto4711 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No you're getting the wrong end of the stick. I see theses as good articles!--Hiltonhampton 21:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I am a pretty major fan of DH, I agree that some of these charcters should not have articles, because they have been basent from the show for a long time, had limited roles and will not come back, like Martha Huber, Xiao-Mei, the Applewhites, Travers McLain and Justin. There is a precedence for this: articles about Art Shephard and Carolyn Bigsby were redirected to the list of characters when these characters became unimportant. However, Victor Lang, Ida Greenberg, Kayla Huntington, Parker Scavo and Preston and Porter Scavo still have important roles so they should remain there as much as Andrew, Danielle, Paul Young and Zach Young, and some others that are not listed for deletion here. Some characters who won't come back also deserve articles because they had highly important roles in the plot: Gloria Hodge, Alma Hodge, George Williams (Desperate Housewives) and Noah Taylor (Desperate Housewives). Don't forget that there may still be people who watch the first seasons of DH for the first time so Wikipedia should provide them with information about these characters. I think that no articles should be bulk deleted before a serious discussion has been done to determine which articles to delete and which to keep. Canjth 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how important they are within the show if they don't have secondary sources providing out-of-universe context. --Crazy Legs KC 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow your reaoning, Rex Van de Kamp, Zach Young, Paul Young (Desperate Housewives), and even Edie Britt, Carlos Solis, Danielle Van de Kamp and why not the four leading characters should be deleted. None of the characters, not even Bree Hodge or Lynette Scavo have any "out of universe" context. Please explain why the entire list of articles tht are proposed for deletion here should be bulk deleted but not all the others. I'm not saying these articles should all be kept, I'm just saying they should not be bulk deleted without discussion specific to each character article. Canjth 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my nomination, I just nominated these for now because they're the ones that I'm most sure are worthy of deletion. I refrained from nominating any of the starring characters for now because they're more likely to have out-of-universe context, even if it hasn't been shown yet. (Such as from interviews, DVD commentaries, etc.) However, if context and notability is not demonstrated for those characters in the future--yes, they probably should be deleted/merged, in spite of being starring roles. Read WP:FICT—"notability" for fictional subjects means having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just playing an important part within the plot of the work itself. --Crazy Legs KC 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not wishing to resort to the Pokémon test, but we have worse than this on Wikipedia. No evidence that all these characters fail WP:FICT. Each case should be analyzed separately, a mass nomination is probably not adequate for them. Hús ö nd 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also no evidence that any of them pass WP:FICT, and that's what's important. "Having worse than this" is not a reason to keep something. It just means that the stuff that's worse than this should be deleted as well, so we can clean all the sewage out of the pond. --Crazy Legs KC 03:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These characters may not be important now, but they were still there and you should keep them.

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeDOM (programming)[edit]

This article is mostly a copy of http://www.codeproject.com/useritems/freedom.asp and is as far as I can tell wholly made up of original research about a non-notable invention of its author, CodeAdams. The article cites no reliable sources, and portions of it are written in the first person. (indeed, the "History" section proclaims: “The FreeDOM technique was invented by Adam Smith on September 28, 2007.”) Some of its content is potentially relevant to the article about Comet (programming). jacobolus (t) 05:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to have no other mentions other than primary source article on codeproject. It would be easier to decide to keep if this project had a presence on SourceForge/GoogleCode/etc, had existed for more than a few days, had a non-trivial number of users/contributors, and had articles or references on other notable websites. See no original research and no madeup things and notability. -- Bovineone 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy vanispamcruft. —Ruud 07:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:CodeAdams is probably Adam Smith--the inventor of FreeDOM. The article is mostly original research.-- Mumia-w-18 07:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the strong promotional tone, if this were not already at AfD, a G11 speedy deletion might be considered. The absence of sources implies there is no way to demonstrate notability. EdJohnston 13:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Dragon Cards[edit]

the page is heavily in-universe and is a plot summary. Moreso, the cards it discusses do not exist in the real card game or the manga, and thus there is little hope to establish notability. The Clawed One 04:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (MONSUTA KAADO) non-notable aspect of a filler storyarc with no real world relevance. JuJube 08:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Transwiki to Yu-Gi-Oh Wikia if possible.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly magill[edit]

Non-notable, delete. Neutrality^talk 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others, plus because it's obviously an autobiography. Nyttend 05:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 20:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Hades Empire Infershia[edit]

Again, this is all plot information (WP:PLOT) with no real world context. There are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Pilotbob 04:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot meet WP:NOT. I could not find coverage of this subject in any reliable secondary source so it does not meet WP:FICT. If this article is rewritten, it still will not policy guidelines. Since reliable secondary sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting can make a difference. Explain how this article can be revised without still violating WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. I have nominated these articles because I believe fixing them is impossible Pilotbob 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are secondary sources. I will find them tonight. There are also primary sources, as well. Just because you do not know how to fix them, does not mean that other people do not know, as well. I know that there are a lot of articles that need fixing, because people feel the need to put plot summary in fictional character biographies. Maybe if you sought out the sources in the other articles they referenced, you may be able to find suitable secondary sources, instead of automatically going "This article sucks because NOT, N, RS, etc. Let's delete it." Deletion is not a response to slightly perfect content. Its a response to content that has absolutely no place in an encyclopedia. This is a list of characters in a notable television series. They are notable. Reliable sources can be found, and I will find them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete: if this article is pruned of all OR and cruft it would be a small paragraph worth of material. that small paragraph maybe should exist within some other article here on wikipedia but i don't see it in the middle of all of the claptrap in that article. ^Law/_Disorder 04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no original research. Its just not properly sourced and cited at the moment. This page could be really shortened, but other than that, I know its not perfect in its current state.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"N Ma was resurrected when Meemy transferred the Magirangers' Legend powers into him. The tendrils on his head each end with a dragon's head. When Wolzard turned back into Blagel, N Ma turned him back, but Kai broke his spell. N Ma was seemingly hindered by Blagel when he sacrificed himself to stop N Ma by sealing the demon's soul in his own body." ^Law/_Disorder 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That tells you nothing about what could be sourced to off-site episode summary, off-site character biography, official site episode summary, or official site character biography. That sentence only tells you what happened in the television series (which is currently the content of the article). Not about the characters within the series itself.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does tell you that the article creator simply translated it from Chinese into English without any cleanup effort. Pilotbob 05:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get Chinese from? Regardless, the article was created because its content was cluttering up its series page. This gave the unintentional result of making the article waaaaaaaaay too long. As I said, I'll be looking for sources and I'll be getting someone to cut out anything that is useless in the information.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no primary sources, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Furthermore the article is written from an in-universe perspective and primarily comprises of plot summary. This fancruft is beyond clean up. --Gavin Collins 10:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am not sure about this, but I agree with WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:V Greg Jones II 12:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*delete as it currently stands. no primary sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability as stated above. If this changes, I'll reconsider. --Fredrick day 17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Neutral due to changes to the article - will need to read it closely later. --Fredrick day 12:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The info is needed as it deals with the main charatcers. Like Ryulong said, if you don't like it, just fix it. Fractyl 18:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is just a summary of these chracters' roles in the fictional universe with no real-world context or analysis. It's doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to fix that problem or to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, this article cannot be "fixed". Doctorfluffy 19:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and shorten: Like Ryulong this material can be rewritten to remove excessive plot detail. Besides if this article is to be deleted then I would suggest to Trans-Wiki these into the Mahou Sentai Magiranger page on the Power Rangers Wiki where a lot of other material that used to be on Wikipedia. If you look at this link [25] you can see how badly underwritten the articles on this wiki are. Besides Pilotbob, can't you see that since these shows are generally released only in Japan that it is hard to find reliable sources for this stuff. Personally my opinion is that deletion should Never be the first option to removing a bad article. -Adv193 00:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some primary and secondary sources, as well as the page's compliment at the Japanese language Wikipedia at 地底冥府インフェルシア.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no need to delete it, as the material can definently be rewritten to be more concise.--Mr Fink 19:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this game guide has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 08:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a game guide and it has reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete in its present state, fails WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:V. (But it's not a game guide; that's just Gavin's pet peeve.) Ryulong and others have not addressed these issues, leading one to suspect they cannot. --Orange Mike 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real-world content after first sentence; fails WP:FICT Percy Snoodle 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If one would state how several fictional characters' biographies are supposed to have real world content, then it could be incorporated. Everyone is just saying "this is wrong because X and that is why it should be deleted" and not saying how it could be improved.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is no real-world content which addresses these characters and their biographies, then there is no reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT#IINFO again. --Orange Mike 03:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So that pretty much covers every single list of fictional characters on Wikipedia. This one was put up in a batch of five and were chosen because a similar article was kept in another AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I began planning to remove unnecessary details from Wikipedia for both Power Rangers and Super Sentai and transfer them to the Power Rangers Wiki which can accomadate the info but as I said before all this article needs is to be trimmed to cut down on details. -Adv193 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page needs quite a bit of work done, but it's all possible, and sources do exist, despite not currently being linked on the page. I find it odd that this wasn't brought up for discussion before a deletion nomination was started. Arrowned 06:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Core desat 03:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Model High School, Khilgaon[edit]

nn high school. nothing is established with sources. ^Law/_Disorder 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously non-notable. Auroranorth (sign) 06:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:OUTCOMES almost all high schools are notable and while this article does not have much now it is extremely probable that something notable is attached to this school. TonyBallioni 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OUTCOME is just an essay stating the opinions of some editors, and is filled with unsourced statistics. TJ Spyke 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OUTCOMES has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. It is certainly not a reason to keep this article. As it stands, there is nothing to show this is a notable schools, and non-notable things are delted. i (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claims of notability. Article is just 1 sentence saying that the school exists. TJ Spyke 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. Just because it's a "high school" doesn't mean it's automatically notable, it might only have 10 students. Crazysuit 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Weak) Delete as failing my standards, but could possibly be sourced per WP:HEY. Bearian 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing to weak delete after finding these sources: Bangledesh Football [26], New Age Sports at the Daily Newspaper [27] Daily Star [28] and The Independent[29] articles about their football/soccer team. Bearian 17:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters in Mahou Sentai Magiranger[edit]

This is a list of monsters that are not notable outside of the fictional universe. There is no real world context. Remember WP:NOT#DIR, and that Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Additionally, there are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. Also, this is plot information only (WP:PLOT) Pilotbob 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot meet WP:NOT. It has existed for almost a year and is still completely unsourced. I could not find coverage of this subject in any reliable secondary source so it does not meet WP:FICT. Additionally, it will never amount to anything but a guide to the fictional show (WP:NOT#GUIDE). If this article is rewritten, it still will not policy guidelines. Since reliable secondary sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting can make a difference. Explain how this article can be revised without still violating WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. I have nominated these articles because I believe fixing them is impossible Pilotbob 04:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, this article is another one that I could see deleted and not affect its source article in any way. Merging would be pointless.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is just a summary of the minor creatures in the fictional universe with no real-world context or analysis. It's doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to fix that problem or to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, this article cannot be "fixed". Doctorfluffy 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#PLOT and indiscriminate information. Crazysuit 06:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content, but if the content is terrible then it is sure to be deleted sooner or later. This article has no primary or secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Mahou Sentai Magiranger television series. Better to delete now. --Gavin Collins 20:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the content is terrible, then it's sure to be changed sooner or later. -Harmil 06:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just needs to be reworked to remove excessive details and if possible I would like for this to be be Trans-Wikied to the Power Rangers Universe Wiki that has it's own Sentai section and is full of details that is no longer on Wikipedia and the Magiranger link is [30]. I would rather see this stuff Trans-wikied rather than deleted completely. -Adv193 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The article can be rewritten for conciseness, and be stuck back into Underground Hades Empire Infershia, where it was originally split off from.--Mr Fink 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Doctorfluffy. A large article on the series seems appropriate, but having a "list of monsters" or "list of spells" seems almost as crufty as having an article on a "list of things that made Homer say 'doh!'". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infershia Pantheon[edit]

This article fails WP:PLOT because it is all plot information, cannot be cited with secondary sources per WP:FICT, and has no real world context (nor could a real world context be established). Pilotbob 03:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On review, this article could be merged into Underground Hades Empire Infershia if it is kept, because it is in exactly the same boat as Power Animal (Gaoranger) (although with much more superfluous plot summary that I will find someone who knows the subject to review).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per protest vote above. ^Law/_Disorder 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: Just needs to be merged and trimmed of excessive details, just nominating a article for deletion and predicting that deletion is the only way is a bit overdoing it. If merge is necessary then I will suggest remove the excessive plot details and only focus on the key elements. -Adv193 20:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: The article can be rewritten for conciseness, and be stuck back into Underground Hades Empire Infershia, where it was originally split off from.--Mr Fink 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable secondary sources to indicate it passes WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 01:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magiranger spells[edit]

This list of fictional spells lacks any real world context, is not notable outside of the ficitonal universe, and cannot be cited with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT, also is plot information Pilotbob 03:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:NOT#GUIDE Pilotbob 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is one of the few articles that I wouldn't care if it were gone. It's just a list of shit from the episodes, and serves no real purpose. The character lists and character biographies that were also listed for deletion concurrently are those that I think should not be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 12:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, clearly absolutely no notability in the real world. Not even going to bother listing policies. Doctorfluffy 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stronger delete than Doctorfluffy, at least until I see a good reason for someone to know the intricate details of the physics of spellcasting in a TV series beyond the small paragraph included in the main series article, and can find some sorts of 3rd-party treatments of it to add as sources. WP:OR too. I think the old Lightsaber combat article is a strange parallel to this. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger delete than AllGloryToTheHypnotoad as article has no primary or secondary sources, and is comprised of in universe plot summary with no real-world context. --Gavin Collins 08:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 arguments for deletion here held that this article is not only unsourced, and thus fails notability guidelines, but that it cannot be sourced to reliable sources. Arguments for keep fail to address this in any substantial way — chiefly, by providing sources. Naturally, this is not prejudice to a properly sourced article being written on this subject. --Haemo 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AkaRed[edit]

This article regarding a fictional character shows no real world context, cannot be cited to meet the secondary sources requirement of WP:FICT, and the character is generally not notable outside of its own fictional universe Pilotbob 03:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article is not the first response to bad content. Fix it first. All of this seems to be in response to the keep of another article in the same series. We do not delete articles because of WP:NOT. We fix them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot meet WP:NOT. I could not find coverage of this subject in any reliable secondary source so it does not meet WP:FICT. If this article is rewritten, it still will not policy guidelines. Since reliable secondary sources do not exist, no amount of rewriting can make a difference. Explain how this article can be revised without still violating WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:RS. I have nominated these articles because I believe fixing them is impossible Pilotbob 04:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a handful of websites that I could find tonight that would serve as secondary sources, and I could find the primary sources as well. This article could feasibly be merged into its series' article, but not outright deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per protest vote above. ^Law/_Disorder 04:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
your vote ignored the reasoning in the deletion and was basically copy and pasted in multiple deletion debates. ^Law/_Disorder 04:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because all of the deletion rationales were a copy and paste in those same debates. Afterwards, I reviewed and made the secondary replies, such as merge here, delete at two others, and merge at a third. Out of all of the pages listed for deletion in the purview of the WikiProject I started.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. This is just a summary of the character's role in the plot with no real-world context or analysis. It's doubtful reliable secondary sources exist to fix that problem or to establish notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, this article cannot be "fixed". Doctorfluffy 19:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable--Zingostar 21:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This information is unworthy of being kept on a single page and needs to be Trimmed down. -Adv193 22:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge as article has no primary or secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But that does not mean that they cannot be found for the inclusion in the article to which it could be merged to.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless secondary sources found.--Doc^g 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo 01:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Icrime[edit]

Contested prod. Dictionary definition of a non-existent word. The term does appear to be very occasionally used (albeit I can only find one use that isn't on either a blog or a forum post), but I really don't think this one's even worth transwikiing as I think it's unlikely Urban Dictionary would want this, let alone Wiktionary. A mess of unsourced claims, US-centricism, apparent original research and weasel words; our old friends "some people" and "others claim" both raise their heads. — iridescent 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN protologism. Fails WP:NEO, WP:V, WP:RS. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, does appear to have been given some coverage, although may still fail WP:NEO and WP:RS.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Dhartung. Fails a whole array of policies. Doctorfluffy 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Core desat 03:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veropedia[edit]

Seems like a very new website, but the only independent sources on it seem to be blogs, which are not reliable sources. Since this is a Wikipedia-related topic, possibly move it to Wikipedia:Veropedia or just delete. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete will surely end up being recreated but for now minimal notability. JJL 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~: not yet notable. seems that it might be at some point, but not yet. ^Law/_Disorder 04:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
might be notable now. close enough anyway. i still deplore the bias show however. ^Law/_Disorder 19:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has met notability guidelines in the reception of significant coverage from reliable source material. Notability isn't about the amount of web traffic, it's about whether we have the source material to verify content. We do, so we should have an article. VanTucky ^Talk 06:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links in the references section seem to be to blogs, and the talk page is empty save templates, so I don't know what sources you mean. If you do know of some particular sources that covered it, would you provide links to them so they can be used in the article? Or are some of those blogs reliable? I admit that I am not familiar with them, and a brief look didn't indicate that they were. A clarification would be appreciated. --Sopoforic 08:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

800 words of coverage in the Toronto Star is more than significant, it's exclusive. This article now exceeds the basic notability criteria. VanTucky ^Talk 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes at the bottom of this debate. The question is, does it really satisfy the relevant notability guidelines? There's an exception to being notable which the article comes unnervingly close to being covered by, again as I've noted. Definitely an ambiguous one... Anthøny 19:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That point is now somewhat moot, given the publication of the Wired News article today[31] - Alison ^❤ 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:VanTucky. --Bduke 07:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's accumulating press coverage, and deleting it is likely only to lead to a cycle of drama -- Seth Finkelstein 10:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets guidelines etc. Not having many sources is certainly not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve it--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where this website has been discussed in reliable sources. Wikipedians' blogs are NOT reliable sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we can't say whether in the future it will be discussed by reliable sources for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets notability due to press coverage. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly does not meet notability due to lack of press coverage.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the press coverage and there's really no point in deleting something that would be recreated in future. Notability is only a guideline and given the drama a deletion here would cause, it's absolutely not worth deleting. Nick 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VanTucky. Omigod, a bunch of Wikipedia articles you can't nominate for deletion. Can they DO that? Mandsford 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep for now~~ The Slashdot coverage is one non-trivial reliable source and Veropedia already has criticism from notable web 2.0 critic Nicholas Carr so this technically just fails beneath notability. There will almost certainly be additional sources in the very near future so we might as well wait a week or two to see if that in fact occurs and delete if it ends up being a dud (disclaimer: I helped write much of the current article). JoshuaZ 13:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Changing my opinion to simple keep given the Toronto Star coverage and the upcoming Wired coverage. Meets WP:WEB. JoshuaZ 19:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For better or for worse, Wikipedia tends to have a much lower threshold for inclusion as concerns itself. See Category:Wikipedia. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? My impression has generally been the exact opposite. It took forever until we even had an article on Jimbo Wales and one major objection to the Essjay controversy article seemed to do with it being related to Wikipedia. Similarly, some people wanted Daniel Brandt deleted solely because of the Wikipedia connection even though he was notable in other respects. There might be one or two in that category that shouldn't their own articles (such as Wapedia) but by and large the problem goes in the other direction. JoshuaZ 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take a look at some of those categories underneath Category:Wikipedia like Category:Wikipedias by language, Category:History of Wikipedia and Category:Wikipedia people. Also, Jimbo's article page was created in 2003, but reverted at his request. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 15:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, so? There are more than enough sources for each of the invidual major Wikipedias (albeity with the excepetion of .de and a few others they are only in the original languages). So those are all fine. Of the History set I don't see anything that's problematic by itself aside possibly from Morton Brilliant and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China(a notable topic with a few ok sources the main issue here is that most of the included details are original research). Of people, there are only a handful and some of the people such as Mike Godwin would be notable even without their Wikipedia connections. Of the people the only one I see of questionable notability are Alison Wheeler(meets notability barely), Tim Shell (doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, should probably be AfDed), Joshua Gardner (might be notable, arguably falls under NOT NEWS).Alan Mcilwraith(same issue possibly as Gardner) and all the others are fine. So we have overall one that should be AfDed, a handful of borderlines and the majority as being ok. I don't see much evidence of there being being a lower bar for Wikipedia related topics. JoshuaZ 15:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying that they're problematic, or that they have no sources. Quite the contrary -- I think they're fine. However, Wikipedians seem to have a skewed view of Wikipedia-related people and events. This doesn't actually bother me ... I have some problems with WP:N anyway, as much as I realize that it's a necessary evil. And a lot of those articles, which are now deemed notable, were created before the issues in them were noteworthy. Take a look at the page histories. Like I said, this doesn't bother me at all, I'm just pointing it out. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice against recreation when WP:NOT#NEWS surpassed) - Per JLL will surely be recreated at some time. Much as I like veropedia, the core question is, do we have reliable verifiable sources that Veropedia has gained significant recognition to meet WP:N and WP:NOT as it stands, and at this point in time.

Non-blog media attention is minimal, and essentially comprises republications that mirror the slashdot story, and based on the same two sources slashdot itself gives - its developer's blog and veropedia's own self-publication.
The number of blog posts from Google suggest that following the slashdot post, Veropedia has achieved some mention, but that its mentions are 1/ as social gossip or a "coming soon" interest, rather than 2/ as a notable encyclopedia (eg: a site that readers are told is notable by sources discussing reference websites).
The publications are mostly republication of self-published material provided by Veropedia and its developers, with brief comment (plus one criticism by a party open to concerns that he might focus on anything Wikipedia-related whether notable or not).
- Veropedia as an reference site: - There is no evidence that as a reference site any independent credible reliable source has yet taken significant note of veropedia.
- Veropedia as a social buzz, concept, meme or potential future 'watch this spot': - Ideas and concepts do merit articles, but the blogosphere includes many of these so (WP:NOT, WP:N) a degree of exceptionality or a basis to pick this one out as notable, is needed, to meet the criteria "not an indiscriminate collection of information".
There does not yet seem to be significant (or any real) analysis and opinion, by reliable sources on reference sites, as said, the mentions seem to be mostly limited to republications of self-published material. There are no obvious secondary sources upon which to base more than a self-description. So it is hard to provide coverage on veropedia as a subject - there are no (or very few) sources of comment and analysis.
Finally, considering WP:CRYSTAL whilst veropedia has traction, suppose all all the mentions it ever got, were those it has now, would there be enough to say it had achieved "notability"?

We have at least one reliable source (and republications), plus evidence of a significant amount of transient social gossip. But in fact, WP:NOT#NEWS sets an additional bar over that, that a brief media mention is not enough. Although I started writing this as "keep/weak keep", I feel on reflection and source checking, that at present veropedia is still within the territory of "brief mention in the news"; there is just the one source mention that's pushed these republications. Even though there is public mention and some blogosphere buzz, that for me is the decider. That may change in a week, or a few months, or never. It may even change during this AFD. But it's not to be anticipated that it will. Delete for now, until such time as this status quo has changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my remark bellow about what CRYSTAL actually says. CRYSTAL applies primarily to future events where the content is speculative. That's not an issue here. Similarly NOT NEWS is to deal with one-offs such as murders, car-crashes, minor elections, scandals, publicity stunts etc, not the existence of a website which continues to exist The most relevant detail is WP:WEB which this meets given the Slashdot and Toronto Star coverage. The fact that Wired is going to do a piece just makes it even more so. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that it's not an issue here. Much of the "keep" view posting is based on editors' impressions what vero might or will be, or what kind of coverage might or will emerge but hasn't done so sufficiently yet. That is classic WP:CRYSTAL. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not News, like all polices and guidelines, is meant to be interpreted with some degree of common sense. DGG (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what exactly you see as not "common sense". Is there ongoing or independent significant coverage beyond slashdot and its ripples at present? At present, Veropedia has had one significant mention - a republication of its self published self descriptions on a major IT news+discussion website. These were picked up by slashdot and mirrored in many blogs and a couple of sites. There is no apparent coverage beyond that now.

WP:NOT#NEWS is exactly intended to discriminate against matters which receive brief transient coverage in reliable sources (eg see the expression "considers historical notability") - Veropedia's coverage now (WP:CRYSTAL) is one repub of its own self-description, in a slashdot page (plus blogs and such that have reprinted the same self-pub sources), and at this time is brief and transient and no significant wider coverage has been cited to suggest that at this time that is not the case. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible - No way! Just because it can't keep up with Wikipedia's enormous size doesn't mean it should be deleted. This is a great up-and-coming website that should have a great article to it. I can't believe you even thought of deleting this. jj137 (Talk) 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? Has anyone mentioned Veropedia's size in this discussion at all. The concern is a failure to meet our website notability guidelines. Whether a website is "great" has nothing to do with whether or not it should have a Wikipedia article, and we don't write articles about things simply because proponents claim they are "up-and-coming". JoshuaZ 17:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, yes. But have you ever even been to the website? Sorry, but if you really think wikipedia is perfectly reliable, sadly you're wrong. Wikipedia even admits it. This site has taken thousands of wikipedia articles and checked, rechecked, and rechecked again and again to make sure they are perfectly reliable. Within a few years this site is basically going to be a perfectly reliable wikipedia. We could at least do it a little honor by fixing it up some and giving it its own article. Sorry if I offended anyone or "offended wikipedia", but there are lots of people out there who don't trust wikipedia because anyone can change it to say anything. Sadly this site is trying to take wikipedia's articles and make them so that everyone can "trust them". Thanks jj137 (Talk) 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the essential point. We don't write articles because the subjects have an ideology or lofty goal that we agree with or not. The concerns here are whether the article meets our notability guidelines for websites and whether this runs afoul of various issues discussed in WP:NOT. No one here is claiming that Wikipedia is reliable, nor is anyone saying that Veropedia is a bad idea. The issue is whether we really have enough material to write a worthwhile article about it. (And incidentally, I don't think that "Strongest Keep Possible" is going to have much of a different result than "Strong Keep" especially given that admins generally treat "Strong Keep" pretty close to "keep" anyways and aren't very fond of calls for keeping based on ILIKEIT) JoshuaZ 20:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, I realize that. I'll try to summarize what I'm trying to say in a sentence (or half-sentence): per Jeffrey below. Sufficient press coverage. Sorry, I guess it was kind of hard to get my point across. jj137 (Talk) 22:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, but note my COI here. It's quite new but is ramping up at a fast rate and its visibility is on the increase. Delete now, by all means, but it will just end up being recreated soon anyway - Alison ^❤ 18:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's in Slashdot, and I think we can reasonably expect more reliable sources to be appearing, increasing its notability. Aleta 05:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we can reasonably expect more reliable sources to be appearing" ... This is not useful at AFD. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable" - that's not an issue here. CRYSTAL is to rule out things like Rocky 7 or movies that exist only in speculation from directors. There's no CRYSTAL issue here. JoshuaZ 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, disagree. To recap, much of the "keep" view in this AFD is predicated upon editors' impressions what vero might or will be, or what kind of coverage might or will emerge but hasn't done so sufficiently yet (plus web coverage that would be considered too small to attest to "being notable" on almost any other AFD of a beta website). That is classic WP:CRYSTAL. One way to look at this neutrally is to ask, right now, if Veropedia did nothing more than it has done so far, if it remained a beta website with 4000 Wikipedia articles, a slashdot post and a under 5 or 6 media mentions of the concept, and nothing beyond that, would the "keep" arguments still stack up? Would we keep an article on John Doe's attempt to start an unconnected encyclopedia fork from Wikipedia, based on 4000 articles and a handful of transient mentions? That is the reason WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL are applicable. The "unverified speculation" is that Veropedia will be notable as a reference site. It isn't yet, though I'm sure it will be. That again is WP:CRYSTAL. For every site that is notable, a hundred garner some brief media mention and enthusiasm. Brief mention and a promise of future profile means little. So we apply the same standard to Veropedia as to all other new announcements, we don't cut corners for it. Given the connection to Wikipedia, it's probably (especially?) a good idea to be (if anything) more diligent than usual. We can always recreate when appropriate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: wow. all i can say about this debate is wow. one damn source. why do we suddenly show all this favoritism because it's a wikipedia relate project? ^Law/_Disorder 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i mean, don't you people have any shame? ^Law/_Disorder 05:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing all your toys out of the pram because you're not getting your own way is funny, but ultimately completely unhelpful. Please just let the discussion run it's course without making personal attacks on everybody who has expressed an opinion here. Nick 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the editor is merely profressing frustration at the ability of several admins to game the Wikipedia process in order to pimp a site they're involved with? --Bogwoppit 11:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Toronto Star has an article about it in today's newspaper or online at [32]. --YUL89YYZ 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is more what WP:RS would require, but still the concern that there is no evidence that it has more than transient news interest persists. At this point WP:NOT and WP:N, the basic inclusion criteria, still seem to be quite far from met. "Beta project of a new concept website roll-out with limited commentary or note" (which is all we have really) is not really enough to support an article yet. As said, sometime, it will have one, I'm sure. But that time is not now. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yielding to the opinion of Seth Finkelstein, and many others, herein. 1.) Songgarden 15:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Nick and Alison...--Comet styles 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without future prejudice. Getting slashdotted does not make something notable. The Toronto Star article makes me sit up and pay attention a bit more, but I'm still not convinced this meets wp:n. Delete for now. If this really does take off, we'll start to see more mention in the traditional press outlets. It's easy to recreate the article later if that happens, and Wikipedia won't be any worse for having missed jumping on the bandwagon for a few more months. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to cover breaking news. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Declaration - I am a Vero contributor. Notability is really marginal at the moment, and to be honest the article is by necessity quite sketchy; if it was not a Wikipedia-linked project I don't think it would have an article. If it is deleted, it can quite easily be re-created when Vero becomes more notable. ELIMINATORJR 16:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment indeed, if delete is the decision it should probably be redirected to Wikipedia anyway. JJL 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In which case a straight redirection (with no deletion) would probably be better so we don't lose the history and so a mention if necessary can be added elsewhere with the preexisting content. JoshuaZ 17:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a usual concern at AFD. if needed though the page could be moved to user space, so the history is kept, the #redirect deleted or changed, and then when it's time, moved back and improved. That's probably the better way to do it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Redirect to Wikipedia until more reliable sources. Also note I have a COI. ~Eliz81 ^(C) 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in strong support of the site and a contributor, but very few reliable sources for an article. This is a Secret ^account 18:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's quite there in terms of adequate notability. By realistic Wikipedia standards, it probably will be after Wired prints their interview with Danny. No opinion on what to do until then. Cheers, Wily D 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on today's Toronto Star article (approx. 800 words of dedicated coverage).--A. B. ^(talk) 19:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient press coverage. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If anything needs to be deleted, its Citizendium, not this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Citizendium clearly has more press coverage (although it does look like citations to Larry are about 3/4s of the citations in that article). JoshuaZ 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And not necessarily just the article, in their case. Have they picked a licence yet ? Nick 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stay on topic, shall we? VanTucky ^Talk 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. And they still haven't settled on a licence. Nick 23:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is within the notability guidelines (if only barely). What is also to be considered is the fact that this sight will most likely expand in the future. Also Wikipedia should at the very least provide information on projects it is an active part of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U5K0 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Press coverage, especially in the Toronto Star is more than enough to warrant keeping this article. Perfect Proposal ^{Speak out loud!} 01:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one appears to me to be a must-keep, given that it meets WP:Notability and is already an integral part of the wiki approach, which has arisen out of the same address and office space as Wikipedia, is relevant to the wiki project, and arises out of similar concerns about reliability that gave rise to Citizendium. ... Kenosis 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Veropedia isn't wikipedia-related enough to move it to the Wikipedia: namespace. Please tell me you are kidding. Deleting because the sources suck? Surely you digress. How many articles acutally have sources? -Pilotguy contact tower 03:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Vantucky. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Veropedia isn't well known enough to be considered for an article.andrewrox424 ^Bleep 03:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-known is not an inclusion criterion. WP:WEB is, and it seems to meet that. JoshuaZ 03:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would say...Keep. I think it will be more notable in future. It is some what notable. Masterpiece2000 05:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it matches the requirements to me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article appears to meet notability requirements now. E.g. an article in the Nov. 4 Toronto Star [33]. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 05:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - <sarcasm>All we need is another headline like "Wikipedia deletes article about one of its rivals"</sarcasm>. The main thrust of WP:IAR is that we should do what is for the good of the project; to me, that means not appearing to be defensive in any way about a site that some might consider a rival. (I personally think it's something that will help prod us into getting flagged versions, and therefore it's a good thing, but that's another matter.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't exactly a rival project since it is working with Wikipedia (they edit the articles up to their standards before importing them over, and they encourage people to donate to the Wikimedia foundation). Furthermore, I'd be inclined to argue that our content decisions should be PR independent. If we start including or not including things for PR reasons we will lose credibility. JoshuaZ 16:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I don't think whether or not we'll get flak for a decision should ever be at the forefront of our decision making process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable rival. Well known now in Academia. Bearian 17:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did anyone notice the domain registration address points to the same address as Wikipedia

Post office boxes in St. Petersburg. Wily D 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's because it is a post-office box used by Danny. It has already been pointed out that this doesn't look so good. JoshuaZ 18:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it mentions different boxes (#358 for the Foundation, and #354 for Veropedia). Heaven forbid two people who live in the same town to use the same post office! Oh heavens, the scandal! ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article in The Star is enough coverage for me, especially when we take into account that even if we delete now, it will almost certainly be legitimately created soon enough. So leave the article. — Soleil (formerly I) 03:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sufficiently notable per WP:WEB - if deleted now it will end up being recreated at some point. Note my CoI. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Riana. I may have a slight CoI on this. --Mark (Mschel) 13:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep - my COI bias wants me to say keep, but I have to put that aside and weaken my input, because if this was any other subject, I'd be suspicious of having only one major news source. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Changed to full keep now that Wired came out with a story. Two major news sources meets WP:N. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the Wired News story has now gone live[34] - Alison ^❤ 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Wikipedia:Notability (web) states that The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.... An article on Veropedia was published in this article in the Toronto Star, Canada's highest-circulation newspaper. Having said that, that newspaper article comes dangerously close to being covered by one exception to being notable under WP:WEB: "Trivial coverage, such as: ... a brief summary of the nature of the content". This is a tough one, and the fact that its made up of a circle of long-standing Wikipedians shouldn't affect whether or not it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. In this instance, I'm erring towards accepting it, for now, but I'd like to see lots more sources. Anthøny 19:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Just barely passes WP:WEB. ff m 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I admit my Conflict of Interest (being a developer and contributor), I still believe this passes the burden of notability. Sources exist, and even more are certainly forthcoming. Mzoli's seems to come to mind. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment We have another yet another reliable source on the topic although it is a local newspaper. JoshuaZ 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the new sources are helpful and appreciated, but I still find myself saying that if the project were to fall apart tomorrow and no further work was ever done on it then it would fail WP:N. I am hopeful that it will succeed--it's a great idea for a web site--but these are brief articles about the idea for the web site more than on the actual web site itself and so I think the site itself fails to be notable now. (What content does it really have?) I continue to say (weak) delete and recreate when it's live and used (or otherwise notable). Perhaps redirect to Wikipedia (is there a Wikipedia clones or Wikipedia spin-offs article yet?) and make a passing mention there. JJL 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More coverage of Veropedia:
- Nu.nl (reliable and notable Dutch news website)
- NRC.nl (The weblog of Dutch internet journalist Marie-José Klaver, hosted by her employee, newspaper NRC Handelsblad)
- Der Standard (Der Standard is an Austrian national daily newspaper)
- Heise.de (somewhat notable, more or less reliable German website)
- IT.News.hu (Hungarian IT news website)
- Hardware.no (Norwegian tech news website)

Btw, is Veropedia really a rival? Isn't it a partner/colleague encyclopedia? Aec·is·away ^talk 16:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 2: The Series[edit]

This article is about a series of YouTube videos which apparently have been deleted from YouTube, but as far as I can tell, they were fan-created videos consisting of still photos of characters from High School Musical 2 with the dialogue supplied as text over the photos. Contrary to the implications of the article, these videos were not professional productions with the actual cast of the TV movie. This "series" is just non-notable web content. This article had previously been submitted for WP:PROD and deleted, but was later re-created. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 03:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful info. at the HSM article. JJL 03:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Series created through a copyvio, and the video was pulled by the user so they were probably pressured to do so. Nate 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete with all posible haste. seems like advertising to me. ^Law/_Disorder 04:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 06:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Youtube series are rarely notable Will ^(talk) 14:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Speedy - Why on Earth would there be an article about a deleted Youtube series? jj137 (Talk) 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Will, no assertion of YouTube notability. •97198 talk 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, author's Photoshop skills suck. And not notable. Axem Titanium 20:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non admin closure. Davewild 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Chiarelli[edit]

lacks notibility and importance. Former Canadian politician with little influence

User:Fishcometsarecool Nov. 3, 3:15 AM UTC

The Super Speediest Keep as possible. This has been the mayor of a major Canadian city. Mayors of big cities or automatically notable. I'm concern that this either a bad faith nomination or a single purpose account.--JForget 02:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add comment Oh and by the way: There are 214 000 Google Hits and was a provincial member of the Ontario Legislature which is an express pass of WP:BIO as provincial politicians are notable. See here for proof that Chiarelli is a former provincial MPP [35]--JForget 02:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol! Keep, obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep but needs some editing for style. JJL 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy snow keep. Perhaps the notability can be challenged in some of these places, but subject exceeds basic notability on Planet Earth. Dl2000 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Of course! TGreenburgPR 15:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Tim Q. Wells 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with slight merges where appropriate. I do not think this debate provides a 'rough consensus' for the outright deletion of either batch of articles. I don't really understand why someone should want to present a non-existent red link for any of these, to be completely honest. However, there is a pretty clear sway toward the opinion that they should not standalone as they do at present. It is indisputable that the articles by and large are excessively over-detailed for an encyclopedia and belong on the Wikia from whence they largely came. I'm therefore going to:

REDIRECT the character articles to List of characters in Pushing Daisies.
REDIRECT the episode articles to List of Pushing Daisies episodes.

I recognise that the nominator attempted this before; I hope this AfD provides a community mandate to have those redirects stick. Bear in mind that the material is accessible to those who would merge from the articles' histories, but that injudiciously doing so is likely to be seen as counter to the outcome of this AfD. -Splash - tk 15:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Pushing Daisies articles[edit]

(View AfD)

Character articles: Digby (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); The Narrator (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Ned (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Olive Snook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Lily Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Vivian Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Emerson Cod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Episode articles: Girth (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Pigeon (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); The Fun in Funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Dummy (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Bitches (Pushing Daisies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Deletion rationale

This is an AfD for a small collection of character and episode articles for the TV show Pushing Daisies.

None of these articles contain enough real-world information to warrant their creation, and their creation is rather recent (about one month for the character articles, less for the episode articles). Per WP:FICT, WP:EPISODE and WP:NOT#PLOT, I redirected the articles till a time where they are able to contain enough real-world information. Since I have been reverted, and more than once, it seems this has become an issue, and I'm bringing these articles to AfD. Normally I wouldn't bring such articles to an AfD, usually because they're older and have had a lot more work done on them. This is different, possibly a chance to nip a potential problem in the bud, before it becomes a mass of articles, and before a lot more editors lose their contributions, and their time.

I have left the first episode article, Pie-lette, out of this AfD, since first episode articles have shown a reasonable potential for real world information in the past, and the article does have a reception section. Since I think it is likely that some of the main character articles will some day receive enough real-world information, I consider my position on them to be a weak delete. If kept, they definitely need some excessive stuff trimmed from them (such as this list). And we certainly don't need an entire article for the narrator.

I'm all for growing this information on Wikipedia, but we can't let these situations continue to spiral out of control. At the very least, we need to be starting at a list level, such as List of characters in Pushing Daisies (which in itself needs a trim for the very minor characters). -- Ned Scott 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Trim down, merge, and redirect as plausible search terms/wikilinks to either List of Pushing Daisies episodes (for the episodes) or List of characters in Pushing Daisies (for the characters). -- saberwyn 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a very bad tendency to quickly create unmerited articles on every detail of fictional subjects (especially television characters), and this is a good example. (For more examples, look at Template:Desperate Housewives and read some of the many character articles listed there.) Very few fictional characters, IMO, have enough real-universe context to merit their own articles (per WP:WAF), and they probably won't until at least a few decades have passed and they've found a permanent, iconic place in culture (like Mickey Mouse). As such, most of these articles become little more than fancrufty, in-universe "biographies", which is exactly what WP:WAF says they shouldn't be. As for the episodes, I'm kind of more neutral on them than the characters, but more inclined to delete. As you point out, episode articles also need real-world context, and most of them probably don't have enough. This is Wikipedia, not TV IV, so it's not necessary to create an article on every episode of every show, which we also have a tendency to do. If I had my way, any given TV show would have just two articles: one about the show itself, and one listing the episodes--and I could even do without the latter. --Crazy Legs KC 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most but spare episodes - Unlike the person above, I feel lists of episodes and articles on episodes themselves to be quite informative and necessary. At this stage however, the character articles are not needed, though I would be favorable towards their recreation a couple of series down the line (should this show ever get that far). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deus Ex Machina (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Trim/merge) and redirect all to their respective list. A TV show with (at the moment) just five episodes would have major problems to establish the notability of its episodes and its characters, and this show is no exception. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as they are all plot summaries, with no claim to notability per nom. --Gavin Collins 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episodes Most shows of some notability have episodes listed as separate articles on Wikipedia; considering the was Pushing Daisies has been recieved so far, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to be created already. As to the character pages, I admit that I like having them myself, but I'm going to give that a no vote because they seem unnecessary at this point. (I'll try and refine this argument later on; I'm tired at the moment. I apologize for any incoherency in this.) VZG 10:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters, in keeping with common (although controversial) practice with most TV shows on wikipedia. The fact is that wikipedia has become a commonly visited source for reliable episode and character guides, including links to further information. In some cases, such as Arrested Development, the episode and character articles are among the best available information on these subjects on the net. Heroes has an extremely detailed set of character and episode articles whose appropriateness have been unquestioned and even hotly debated on certain points of content, and that was the case very shortly after its debut. In fact, that show has an entire WikiProject devoted to it. Considering the critical praise that "Pushing Daisies" has received and its status as the most significant new show of the current season, I find the patent deletion of all of these articles (especially the episode ones, but the character ones as well) to be unjustified and wildly inconsistent with the most common practice on wikipedia in this medium and area. I agree that all of them need to be rewritten and better cited for quality. As time goes on, shows obtain their own wikias, which can take the place of wikipedia articles, but the fact is that wikipedia has become a trusted source for information on television series, including characters and episodes, whether the puritans like it or not. -- MahlerFan 13:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common practice is not always a good indication of how things should be done, nor does the popularity of a show indicate how things should be done. The rationale here is that excessive plot summary needs real world information. Given how easy it is for fictional articles to get out of control (in raw numbers), we are less likely to keep the plot summary around "just in case" there's real world information if we don't have a good reason to believe it exists. Especially with new articles such as these, since the time invested in them is much less than many other articles (as in, we do tend to be a little bit more forgiving of the article that have been here a long while, but we are quick to put out small fires). -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Them Alone These various articles are starting points to make Pushing Daisies have a great and interactive page. The characters have already established personalities that have enough substance to create pages. As for the episodes, they've already aired, they're not going to have any new information the second time you watch them, why not have them now, instead of later. I come on here to see what happned on the last episode I missed, why should I have to wait 6 months to read about an episode that aired 8 months ago! And don't tell me two sentences can fit a complete description and meaning of an episode in the list of pushing daisies episodes page. All you'd be doing is taking away a great page and just putting off your "problems" for later. - theonlyone1234

You are right, we are removing great and useful plot summary, but Wikipedia is not the place for excessive plot summary without real-world information. A lot of game-guides, travel-guides, and how-to manuals have been deleted or moved off of Wikipedia, even though they were useful and of great quality. This is because Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria (while vague for many topics), so that the main content of Wikipedia is encyclopedic and grounded in the real-world. -- Ned Scott 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should only be an article about an episode if there is "real-world context and sourced analysis" to talk about. This show already has its own wiki and is the featured show at TV IV, so any information can be retained there. --Phirazo 22:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. TV IV is licensed under Creative Commons, not GFDL, so no text from Wikipedia could be transferred there verbatim. Just thought I'd point that out. --Crazy Legs KC 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not verbatim perhaps, but if an individual contributor wants to write plot summaries and character biographies, TV IV is a good outlet for it. Besides, if it is all from one person, they retain the right to license text under both the GFDL and Creative Commons. --Phirazo 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into respective articles Will ^(talk) 14:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to indicate any sort of notability per WP:FICT. Also mainly just WP:NOT#PLOT summaries. Doctorfluffy 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all so it will be easier in the future for someone who wants to re-write them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not a reliable source among them. They can't prove individual notability. Axem Titanium 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep on episodes. Weak Keep on characters per User:MahlerFan. I'm a "[taking] all knowledge to be my province" kind of guy. --mordicai. 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a way to deal with episode articles, but I'm sure Ned knows that. At any rate, delete all of them because there is nothing needed in the history to merge that cannot be remembered. i (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The episode articles are pure plot, and need to be deleted (as opposed to merging) to reinforce the fact that articles like this need reliable, independent, secondary sources. The regular method of dealing with non-notable TV episodes seems to have failed here, so AfD is the only solution. If the only "source" is the show itself, there should not be an article about it (see WP:FICT). Same with the character articles, which have a "biography" pulled directly from the show. Wikipedia articles should not take the place of actually watching the show, and that is all these articles do. --Phirazo 21:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all - One character list, one episode list. If at some point in future encyclopedic treatment requires that one or another character or episode be spun off into a separate article, then do it. For now none of this is necessary. Otto4711 21:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned above, there is a Pushing Daisies wiki on Wikia, Wikia:Pushingdaisies. The main author of the articles is the same user on the PD Wiki, (1, 2) so both Wikipedia's and PD Wiki's copies appear to be GFDL compliant. It's also one of the better external wikis that I've seen. I'm sure that some of this will have a home here on Wikipedia, but it's also good to know that this information does have a home, and it won't be lost. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom's rationale; then create redirects as was previously done. These are non-notable and the characters and episodes are better covered in a list format. They also seem to be well covered at wikia, so interested editors should work there. --Jack Merridew 08:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I'm actually a big fan of this show, but stuff like this violates WP:WAP, WP:Plot, And WP:N. It really is starting to bother me that every little piece of current pop culture is turning into ti's own little wiki on here. Seriosly 5 years from now no one is going to care about any of this crap. Even characters with long histories suffere form this. Look at some of the comic book articles. Every storyline from the past 3 years covered in minor detail, while the rest of history is ignored. Ridernyc 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on that, not really related to overall discussion: For comic books, that may be (in part) because a lot of the old history is being wiped clean. It can be hard to tell what is and what isn't canon for a character now. VZG 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep episodes per VZG and MahlerFan; keep characters per MahlerFan. Timeineurope 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, Merge, Redirect pre Saberwyn, no reliable secondary sources and the episode artiles clearly violate WP:NOT#PLOT. No prejudice against recreation should sources become available later. Star dust 8212 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep episodes, keep characters as per MahlerFan. I honestly don't see what harm this is doing to anyone and it's a useful source of information. If they have to go, then I'm in favour of bringing them back once enough secondary sources have been developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Six (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, people worked their asses off on these, and they're quality articles and follow guidelines well. Articles on characters and episodes of TV series are common and accepted by consensus. I'm completely baffled to see someone single these out, especially given how good an example they are of what these types of articles should be, for start class. They'll get more sourcing, less in-universe and more neutral, tighter plot, etc. They're a month old. Wikipedia is not paper, and these articles are not "fires". -- AvatarMN 07:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participants should read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:EFFORT, WP:NOHARM, and WP:USEFUL come to mind. shoy (^words _words) 13:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If those guidelines were always followed, I don't think Wikipedia could thrive. If articles were deleted without any regard to precedent and hard work, and came down to opinion about whether the people involved in the AFD disregarded whether they were harmless or useful (such findings can only be opinion). Why would someone nominate an article for deletion based on it having a long plot synopsis, instead of trim the plot? Why does notability on a TV show that 8-10 million people watch a week have to be established by whether Time magazine will talk about it, so we can source them? The episodes of a television show ought to be the only thing you need to reference re: information about them, because that's largely all there is to say about them. If you can bring it into the real world more, great, but how are you going to do that when the article's been deleted, unless you've got the time and interest to write something that's been written and deleted before. How many good creative editors have been driven away by the rules-driven editors? Wikipedia couldn't work without both of them, and I think it's bad faith for one type to screw the other like this. Give it time, your concerns will be addressed as the articles are built upon. Don't be destructive. -- AvatarMN 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you're suggesting (sourcing only the episodes themselves) runs contrary to a lot of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and cites what reliable secondary sources have to say about the subject instead of what Wikipedia editors think of the subject. Notability has nothing to do with how popular a subject is, only its coverage by reliable sources. And information from a page that gets deleted isn't lost forever, the page history still exists in the servers, and most admins will restore a copy to your userspace so you can work on it if you ask nicely. shoy (^words _words) 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what Shoy just said, it's also important to remember that we want sources so we have real-world information. You simply don't have real-world information from the episode itself, so you wouldn't be able to use the episode as a source for what we are asking. -- Ned Scott 05:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy can be very contradictive (not to mention that Wikipedia as it exists can be very misleading about policy). One of the pillars is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I think this rule can be interpereted to end all deletionism unless an article is doing harm, or something. There can be no question in the mind of anyone interested in Pushing Dasies and many television fans that these articles improve Wikipedia. And the rules fans ought to understand that an article that's a month old has a decent chance of being brought in line with the precious rules if they just butt out. I don't understand the appeal of being a destructive killjoy, and quoting guidelines to support yourself. Especially if an admin will undo an article deletion because someone wants to work on it... if that happens, then why would you want to delete an article? Leave it, and it'll get worked on. Delete it, and... it could still be worked on. Why bother, then? -- AvatarMN 08:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you missed the part where we pointed out that these articles were actually created on an external wiki, and will continue to exist there. Regardless of how much value you or I feel these articles have, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia grounded in the real world. Wikipedia is not a fansite. And no, IARs does not apply here simply because you want it to. IARs exists for those unexpected times, when we didn't anticipate a certain scenario or other things to that extent. This is not something we just threw together guessed about, these are situations that are highly problematic, and they do not tend to get better with time.

The reason these things are policy and guidelines is because they have consensus support, and they follow Foundation policies about sources and original research. We have good reasons for this, none of which are about hating or liking shows. Most of us who support the fictional guidelines are huge fans of fiction, which is how we got involved in the first place. We don't do it because it's appealing, we do it because it keeps the far more important topics about fiction focused, instead of being lost in a sea of plot summary.

If you want to know what happens in a show, then you need to watch the show. If you want to know the story behind the show, the story of the production and the cast and crew, or how the world responded and interacted with the show, come to Wikipedia. We'll still give the basic plot summary, and sometimes a little bit more when it's unique or complex, but without real world information, we avoid the extreme details. -- Ned Scott 09:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's on an external wiki doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia, or my arguments. And WP:IAR doesn't mean what you said it meant, just because you want it to. It says "if it improves Wikipedia", and anyone who wants to read these articles will find it an improvement for them to be there over them not being there. Anyone who doesn't want to, can not read them. These articles don't have any effect on the focus of other articles. And if the fact that these types of articles exist, and will always be created, and re-created isn't consensus on the suitability of their existence, I don't know what is. -- AvatarMN 10:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above concerns. NHRHS2010 talk 02:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. Serves no purpose whatsoever.Ryoung122 08:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I assure you, the articles have been used. It this argument assuming bad faith? -- AvatarMN 08:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Somewhat early in the day to be splitting the series article off into sub-articles, given the lack of real world info and dubious notability of the characters (a dog???). This isn't a fan Wiki. --Turnipface 09:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/withdrawn nomination, didn't realize that this was actually a locality and not just a shopping center. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village of Cross Keys[edit]

~~Non-notable shopping region in Maryland, fails WP:RS, WP:V.~~ Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep pending improvement. This is more of a planned community or an urban node than just a shopping center. According to this [36], it was James Rouse's first planned community. I'll try to expand and source the article tomorrow. Acroterion _(talk) 04:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, important to the history of planned communities. Not quite a U.S. Milton Keynes (that would be Columbia, Maryland, but it was a template and test-bed for what followed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not hugely notable, but we already include articles on malls...and high schools. Joshdboz 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid criterion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that there is an established precedent for inclusion of lesser known locations, be it a school, development, etc. Joshdboz 02:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I originally created this stub to be not about the shopping area itself, but about the entire neighborhood, which also includes apartments, condos, and other features in a typical neighborhood. I only made it a stub - I was hoping for others to expand. Articles about neighborhoods are perfectly within Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. This neighborhood, I know, does have some notable residents, such as well-known local journalists, though I have not mentioned that yet. Sebwite 16:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as out-of-process "nomination". There's no AfD tag on the article, no AfD discussion page has been created, and no reason for deletion is given. Someone has apparently just added an old AfD page (never properly closed?) to today's log. Non-admin closure. Deor 10:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alesana[edit]

patent nonsense, NN, etc. obvious speedy. Joeyramoney 00:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete junk. 205.157.110.11 00:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: slap a tag on. SynergeticMaggot 00:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Speedy Keep: Nominator has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Not notable enough for WP:BIO IronCrow 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Might not be notable for WP:BIO, but that doesn't matter since they qualify for WP:MUSIC, silly. ~Ambrosia- ^talk 03:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth-Century Pioneers in Classroom Discipline[edit]

This is a subjective list of educators and is based on original research. There are no third party reliable sources to confirm any of this. JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 01:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list of not-necessarily--notable educational psychologists. JJL 03:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 05:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete no sources to butress specific claims, and no secondary sources documenting notability of topic, delete as OR, per nom. Pete.Hurd 06:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research / unverifiable. - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 13:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently original research and unverifiable. Hut 8.5 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 passion of its fans are noted, most do not provide any policy based reasoning for keeping this article. More importantly, they do not clearly address or refute the notability concerns of those arguing for deletion. Since this is not a vote, and the fact that other stuff exists is not germane to the notability of this article, the conclusion I must draw is delete. Naturally, there is not prejudice attached to a well-sourced article that clearly demonstrates notability in this deletion. --Haemo 01:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable fan movie. Article was deleted once, prior to its release. No reliable sources cited. Caknuck 01:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hank Braxtan is a up and coming Film maker and works for Mandt Brothers in L.A. as a Director. He has to his credit the following commercial made for TV shows.. Destination: Truth. Dave Johnson of DaveFilms Digital Media producer of fine audio books.DaveFilms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefilms (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you nominate this for deletion? Wikipedia has tons of entries of Star Wars fanfilms like Star Wars: Revelations that was a SHORT film, this is a FEATURE LENGTH FANFILM. It has had a Premiere at the Mayan Theater in Denver, CO aswell as a screening at Mile High Con and has bookings at Big Apple Con as well as a screening set up at a British Convention. Freddy vs Ghostbuster, the precursor to this film, was a hit all over the internet being heavily promoted by Bloody-Disgusting.com, listings on IMDB Here aswell as hostings on TheForce.net Here. Surely this film deserves this page. --BojacRedleif 02:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for an article to be kept. shoy (^words _words) 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read anything past the Revelations part? IT HAS SCREENINGS AT Mile High Con & Big Apple Con. They've booked a showing in London in May! Freaking Arrow-In-The-Head has a article about it Here. --BojacRedleif 02:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself on the original AfDs "I don't believe a Freddy vs Ghostbusters page was ever made. Although it was definetly notable as it was all over the place, it went so far to be British media. (They called them Canadian Youngsters), Bloody-Disgusting.com even said something around "If you ever took the time to download something, this should be it". It won best film at the MicrocinemaFest in South Dakota. It's also on IMDB and if IMDB actually adds a page for it then it's definetly noteworthy."

The film is finally released for FREE on the internet, it did get made. (As it was questioned the previous time) It was featured in the most recent edition of the Denver Metropolitan Magazine. Sources are Cited by reliable 3rd party sites (Metropolitan & Arrow-In-The-Head) now, it surely doesn't fit the guidelines of a swift deletion now. --BojacRedleif 03:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more press coverage can be found to show WP:N. One local interest story doesn't do it. JJL 03:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete Since when did Arrow-In-The-Head become a local interest story? --BojacRedleif 03:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm afraid that I attached even less significance to that website, though the Mistress-of-the-Week Page 3 girls were amusing. JJL 04:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete [37] Midway down is a good article on this film. Also: [38] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.162.201 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable. Could use a link to the trailer on Youtube Colonel Warden 10:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An 85-minute fan-film sounds pretty notable to me. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Radio Advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.162.201 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands at the moment, even though I love the film, the film is non-notable; but I'm sure that will change with time. It is a pity the creators act in such a non-professional manner and attribute 'not getting on wikipedia' to wikipedia warriors have NO life, and relish in the opportunity to flex they cyber muscle, crushing the dreams of would-be cewebrities like myself! (see http://www.braxtanfilm.com/smf/index.php?topic=3487.40) Stop taking things personally, act professional, and keep making great fan films. (And also please don't try to use fake publicity as indicated in the linked thread) 217.43.64.97 16:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youtube is not a reliable source; there is NO coverage of this in reliable sources and thus no hope for notability yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Deletejigsaw695I vote to keep. November 3,2007 —Preceding comment was added at 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete Seems notable enough to be an article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browny3 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you, Jigsaw695, care to cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline that would support your vote? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite the newcomers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So we should keep articles only for the sake of being nice? No regard to policies like verifiability and no original research? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Well no offense to Jigsaw, but he did just post a vote without providing any links to support keeping this page. I don't feel it was a "bite". Hanksta2 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETEDevil MasterThis is feature-length and had screenings in movie theaters, it is notable.

Devil Master 09:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film is notable enough to have its own article. JesseMeza 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources which would support the arguement that it is notable? Anything in a newspaper, magazine, book, or edit-controlled website or equivalent? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to get into a heated arguement on this, but I will ask what's the difference between this article and Star Wars: Revelations? JesseMeza 05:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. shoy (^words _words) 13:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not do one for "Freddy VS the Ghostbusters" and combine them into one article? Tons of Star Wars and Star Trek ones why not keep the 2 notable and quite funny GB ones? They both had public screenings, mentions in newspapers and magazines, the first one won an award, this isn't 2 kids working out of a garage, they had lots of people worldwide working on this and. There are several articles for the first one in a newspaper, and edit-controlled websites, wait a bit and there will be some for this 2 probably. Dr. Stantz 04:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N without reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 08:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-in coffee shop[edit]

Non-notable. The article is about the concept of adding a drive-thru to a cannabis coffee shop, something that was proposed but has not been done. Torc2 00:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its C balling. Interesting concept though. scope_creep 01:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never heard of "Cannabis Coffee Shop," but I have seen Starbucks with a drive-thru. That being said, I don't see why it's deserving of an article... faithless (^speak) 01:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See Cannabis coffee shop. -- saberwyn 04:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a generic article on drive-ins or drive-throughs in relation to shops? If so, would this article be potential for some form of merge OR redirect to that article? -- saberwyn 04:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability, doesn't exist yet (WP:CRYSTAL). At most mention in Cannabis_coffee_shop. Dougie WII 07:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN offshoot of cannabis coffee shop (or even of coffee shop). --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 06:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Dhartung, et al. Bearian 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rudget _{Contributions} 15:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Senator On-Line[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable startup party, a quick look around locates no independent references verifying anything other than its existence. Orderinchaos 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're a new party running candidates for the Senate in just about every state. Having surpassed the requirements for registration with the Australian Electoral Commission should be able to signify notability for our standards, and there's no good reason why we shouldn't have articles on every registered party contesting the election. Rebecca 00:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a real party, state registered, running for elections in a democratic country. Excellent notability. scope_creep 01:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being a political party doesnt make it automatically notable. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which determine notability. Twenty Years 06:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Running for something doesn't make you notable. There are no references or citations in this article that assert notability, other than simply confirming that they have registered candidates for elections. Cogswobble talk 02:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I suggest this AfD should be revisited after the Australian federal election, 2007 later on this month. If they don't win any positions, delete after the election. Auroranorth (sign) 02:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's virtually no chance they'll win any seats. However, registration of a party is far from a formality - they'd have to have registered a decent number of members, for one, to have got this far. In my book, this makes them inherently notable. Rebecca 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a political party does not make you notable. The article fails to assert any sort of notability. It fails notability. Option to re-create in the future, should some reliables turn up. Twenty Years 06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party has received some independent media coverage at the Sydney Morning Herald. Their website also claims an article from the Canberra Times, but I couldn't find it on that newspaper's website. --Goobergunch|? 06:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the Canberra Times routinely deletes articles pretty quickly after putting them up - often just a few days. Rebecca 01:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - per Auroranorth, great argument made there. Delete if non-notable after election. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't say to "keep" articles because they might accomplish something notable. If the party wins seats, then a new article can be created. For now, I don't see how this article meets the criteria in WP:N. It should be deleted unless it does. Cogswobble talk 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any registered political party running candidates in a federal election is notable in my book. Verifiable at [39] —Moondyne 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:NOT#NEWS. An organisation that has been in existence for a few weeks with 500 members doesn't make it notable. The local RSL clubs in my area have more members than this. If this was a school, it would have been speedy deleted. Assize 03:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Becasue it is an actual political party that is running candidates in the Australian elections andtherefore there must be an article about this political party. CatonB 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with CatonB - Arguments for or against deletion should be based on wikipedia policy. From what I can tell, this party fails the notability guidelines for organizations WP:ORG. Cogswobble talk 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added a couple of references to the article. Party appears to have enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable enough as will most parties who contest national elections. Davewild 09:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This party has received extensive media coverage and I have listed some of it in the article. Besides which I think any party with candidates in the election is notable. Me ...™ 12:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Coming Evil[edit]

Self-published with no coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:The Coming Evil. Flex (talk/contribs) 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New author, new book series. Does not satisfy any criteria of notability scope_creep 01:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I already had this tagged for deletion via PROD -- I'm not sure why we need to go through the AfD process. In any event, see the information I left about my notability search at Talk:The Coming Evil. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per scope_creep, Flex. Pigman^what?/trail 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A.B. I don't think there's any "creep" per se, just a non-notable article. I can't find anything but minor PR and promotional material about the author or the book, so unless someone finds a good source to say otherwise, it looks non-notable.Wikidemo 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Faith and Freedom[edit]

Self-published with no coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:Faith and Freedom Flex (talk/contribs) 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article is completely non notable. Radio personality went to Inner Mongolia, wrote some books. The Tom Terry article should go as well. Nothing in there except working at a radio station, non notable. scope_creep 00:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment:Author went to the country of Mongolia (not to a province of China) and became CEO of one of the most popular TV stations there (which would be notable enough for its own article). I won't weep about the book, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater just because someone happens to live in a remote country. --Latebird 19:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and scope_creep. Doctorfluffy 04:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I already had this tagged for deletion via PROD -- I'm not sure why we need to go through the AfD process. In any event, see the information I left about my notability search at Talk:Faith and Freedom. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per other comments made relating to this author, sources needed for verifiability. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless sourced). Seems to be non-notable publication. I couldn't find sources to say otherwise and don't think there are any.Wikidemo 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Strange Man[edit]

Self-published and does not have any coverage in reliable sources, thus failing the notability guidelines for books. See also Talk:The Strange Man. Flex (talk/contribs) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 21:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete New author, no sources, completely non notable.scope_creep 00:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I already had this tagged for deletion via PROD -- I'm not sure why we need to go through the AfD process. In any event, see the information I left about my notability search at Talk:The Strange Man. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - per nom. The article lacks any sort of sources that can establish notability and verifiability, at a moment's notice. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no sources. Pigman^what?/trail 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless sourced). Seems to be non-notable "vanity" publication (that's a term of art, no insult intended on integrity of the author) by non-notable author. I couldn't find sources to say otherwise; I doubt they exist.Wikidemo 21:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. GDonato (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellipool Network Monitor[edit]

~~Not notable; see Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor for details. A. B. ^(talk) 20:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)~~ See below. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think it can be rewritten to demonstrate notability, but looking at the first 100 google hits I'm not very confident of that.jonathon 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an axe to grind -- if someone does show this is notable, I'm happy to keep. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Apparently insufficient sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 06:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search for "intellipool" shows up 77.600 hits on google. If there is a problem with the article from an editoral point of view I can understand that. But deleting it based on a split second search on google is wrong, if that where the case, most articles (if not all) relating to any software product would go the same way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.115.158.58 (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is registered to Intellipool and has only been used for Intellipool-related edits. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the detailed discussion at Talk:Intellipool Network Monitor regarding unique Google hits (~~196~~ 387)^[40][41] as well as unproductive Google News and Google News Archive searches. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion, since the deletion here apparently is based on whats in or not in Googles index, you, or someone familiar with the subject, should review what it scores in relevant keywords, that should be a far better "notability" metric consider Google's now famous "page rank" algorithm. buran 20:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buran, it's hard to prove a negative when it comes to notability. I'm really much less interested in the number of hits than the "reliability" of what turns up. I've seen AfDs fail where a subject has <50 unique hits but they were "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by the WP:NNNotability Guideline. I would not have nominated this article if I could have found something that satisfied the guideline; if something does turn up, I'm happy to turn my "delete" to a "keep". --A. B. ^(talk) 23:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 17:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on relisting: I am happy to run this a little longer since the nominator is happy to keep the article if notability is established, I would recommend deleting if there are no comments which do this. GDonato (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, there appear to be no sources that can establish notablity. Nuttah68 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per failure of notability IMO. Rudget _{Contributions} 18:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is one notable source, review in a IDG paper. http://sartryck.idg.se/Art/Intellipool_nok12004eng.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.91.188.198 (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- IDG is certainly notable (they publish Computerworld/InfoWorld, CIO, Macworld, Network World, PC World, etc.). As the nominator for this article, I am changing my recommendation to "keep" per WP:NN. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding[edit]

This article is either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both. It appears to have arisen as a PoV fork from Stockholm syndrome. It has been extensively edited by User:hkhenson to ensure that his own beliefs are given prominent, if not exclusive, coverage. However, there is not assertion that Henson's theories have any wider acceptance in the psychological community. Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close AFD immediately. This AFD is an inappropriate effort to punish the primary author for opposing Physchim62 in arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, and to make the history showing possible malfeasance on Physchim62's part less accessible to the public. In the past, Physchim62 has abused his administrative powers by taking a side in favor of User:Sadi Carnot over User:hkhenson, reverting the article to the Sadi Carnot version, and then protecting the article to insure that Keith Henson could not edit it further. By deleting this article, the history links will be obscured. Since Physchim62's behaviour with respect to this article is in arbitration, this AFD should be closed immediately.Kww 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom, and I think the current Sadi Carnot case is complicated enough without it. This is why I chose to bring the matter to the proper forums for article deletion. Kww's actions on AfD debates are part of the case, and maybe the closing admin would like to bear that in mind. Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was in the arbitration prior to you submitting this AFD. Care to try again?Kww 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww's comment is a rather lamentable assumption of bad faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started with the assumption of good faith, but investigation of things like this drove me to a conclusion.Kww 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the timing, Physchim62 is most likely trying to retaliate against me pointing out his support for noted pseudoscience pusher Sadi Carnot. He says, "My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom." Wrong. Try here: [42]. Before he put up the AfD he apparently didn't look at the article page, the history or the talk page and put an AfD on a version of the page that contains only Sadi's contributions and none of mine. It is also amusing that he doesn't understand that (for reasons stated at the bottom of the talk page} I think the page *should* be deleted if the misleading and unrelated material is going to be kept. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence that the term "capture bonding" (or "capture-bonding" or "capture bond") is a significant term in any field of psychology. In its current form, the article only cites two sources, and I don't have access to either one, but I'm willing to bet that the phrase "capture bonding" doesn't appear in either one. In [previous versions, the article cited a bunch of articles by Keith Henson, who is also one of the primary authors of Capture bonding. These articles aren't peer reviewed, and Henson doesn't have academic credentials in psychology or any other apparent expertise in the subject. Since "capture bonding" doesn't seem to appear in peer-reviewed academic literature, this article looks like Henson's attempt to promote his own work and his own idiosyncratic take on Stockholm Syndrome, and should be deleted.

Discussion of this article has taken place on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Capture_bonding and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Human_Nature_Review, in case anyone wants to read up on the background. By the way, if it is necessary to keep this article's history available for the arbitration case, the page can simply be blanked until the case is over, then deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With no prejudice to the behavior of the editors involved, the article seems to cite two reliable sources, and thus passes notability guidelines. POV, COI, and other issues are clean-up issues, and nto deletion ones. The behavior of the editors involved should be handled by mediation/arbitration, but none of this is a deletion issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of this article, I have to seriously doubt that those sources use the term "capture bonding". If it can't be shown that this is a notable concept within psychology this article should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible alternative solution Looking through a google search, the term capture bonding appears to be indistinguishable from the established Psychological term Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps a partial merge and redirect are in order? See [43] and [44] and [45] and [46] I will admit that some of these are rather bloggy and not all that reliable, but they DO establish that the terms are really mostly interchangable and that capture bonding is seen, at least by sources apparently unrelated to Henson, as closely related or possibly identical to the Stockholm syndrome, which IS a valid and well established psychological condition. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Henson has been opposing a merge since December 2005 [47]. I would like to see notability which is independant of his writings (which date from 2002). Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One user is not able to overturn consensus. If consensus exists for such a move, it should be done. If one user acts to disrupt the opinion of consensus, then they may be sanctioned for being disruptive.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should never have been considered for deletion.--Cartman005 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have two book references in the article, one a bare name-check. I found two Google Scholar uses of the term, neither apparently treated the subject in depth. I don't think we have enough for an article at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stockholm syndrome. Clearly discusses the same concept. If the term is used by others besides Mr. Henson, it can be mentioned as being an alternative name in that article. Blueboar 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Stockhome syndrome" is an observable symptom. Capture-bonding (credit goes to John Tooby) is an obviously evolved psychological mechanism that--when activated--results in the observable symptom. They are distinct in the same way that "fever" is distinct from the causes of it. The best thing to do might be to blank the page until the discussion here [[48]] concludes. If the decision is to support topic knowledgeable people then I can restore the page. If not, links can be put in where needed to direct people who are interested outside Wikipedia. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to have experts contribute to articles. One of the things an expert can do, hopefully, is point us to reliable sources that contain information about the subject of an article. If you are, as you claim, an expert on the subject of capture bonding, can you cite some reliable sources (preferably peer-reviewed academic sources) that discuss capture bonding as a concept that's distinct from Stockholm Syndrome? Because if such sources can't be found, Capture bonding should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You either don't understand EP and the relation of capture-bonding to Stockholm syndrome or you do and are helping Physchim62 play silly status games. Don't forget he is the one who supported Sadi Carnot when he stuffed the page with unrelated material, some of it outright nonsense. Ask yourself if Physchim62 would have put the page up to be deleted if Sadi was still trying to push his pseudoscience into the article? And why now instead of back in April? Re sources, if HNR isn't considered a good source, would you accept an endorsement from EP big names like John Tooby or Leda Cosmides? If one of them or some other EP name edited the article would you still want to delete it? Keith Henson 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be conceding the point that this term doesn't occur in peer-reviewed literature; if there are no reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Personal endorsements are irrelevant. So are personal attacks, so please stop engaging in them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't concede anything, don't even have an opinion. You can take up the matter of reviewed or not with Robert Young and Ian Pitchford. Pitchford and I had considerable correspondence about the article before it was published. I believe he shared the drafts with his co-editor. Hah, Robert M. Young has a page on Wikipedia [49]. Re personal endorsement, a letter or an edit from John Tooby (who actually first recognized the mechanism) would be a professional not a personal endorsement--given his notable stature in the EP world.

Pointing out facts which can be verified right here on Wikipedia is a personal attack? I am not the only person being attacking over the Sadi Carnot business. See what's going on in the evidence page. [50]. You also seem to be missing the point: I *support* your and Physchim62 intense desire for blanking capture-bonding (as it is) or deleting it. So what's your problem? Keith Henson 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Akhilleus. Doctorfluffy 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and merge if there's anything worth merging). The term is not widely used, at least in Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism at best. Since there seem to be a few instances of independent use of the term, I suggest redirect rather than delete. --Itub 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know whether or not the idea is factually true, or whether the specific name "capture-bonding" is used in the social sciences, but the basic idea has been around in different forms since long before anyone ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome (Rape of the Sabine women etc. etc.). Furthermore, this AfD seems to have been initiated as part of some kind of extended and convoluted personality conflict (the details of which I don't prticularly understand, or feel like expending any effort in understanding), which is not a good motivation for deleting an article. AnonMoos 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Akhilleus.--Nick Y. 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'nuff said. -- Zz 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Akhilleus, background searching has failed to demonstrate to me why this topic is encyclopedic, and the current state of the article doesn't avert these concerns. Daniel 13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minority Time[edit]

The article seems to be a hoax. Also, it is poorly written. --Ixfd64 21:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it should have been deleted a long time ago... what is this? I agree, it is poorly written, ends with a :), and is really weird. Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 01:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be an attempt at a joke. - Snigbrook 03:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch not coming up with this usage. Either a hoax, joke, or OR.--Fabrictramp 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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