Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 7 November 9 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy deleted --Stormie 05:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CMES[edit]

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

Page refers to a non-existent phenomenon. Google returns no hits for a search on the phrase mentioned as the definition of the acronym CMES ("Coffee Maker Explosion Syndrome"). Delete as hoax/fictional material Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 04:49, 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. Having considered the arguments put forward by the participants in this discussion, it is evident that rough consensus lies with the deletion of this article. Primarily, this is because of the absence of establishment of Verifiability over the definition of "Teen punk" itself - despite the provision of external links that claim to do this.

In addition, I concluded "Delete" due to the strong argument put forward by ThuranX (talk · contribs) - "...nothing of note to merge anywhere...". The article has failed to establish any Notability in addition to Verifiability. Anthøny 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen punk[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence in reliable sources that "teen punk" is the commonly used term for this type of music; the evidence I found indicated that Pop punk, on which we have a pretty darned good existing article, is the more appropriate term. Prod removed without comment or improvement by the creator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well... no is the same because for me punk-pop is very similar to teen punk... but punk-pop have a influence of lyrics more of the punk-rock for example and are for all public, so teen punk are more poppy and only talk about things from adolescent people, and is very very commercial... so why remove this sub-genre? is different to punk-pop... Blink 182 and Green day for example are punk-pop but so different ... because Blink 182 have more influence of teen punk... and green day have more influence of punk rock music... but both are punk-pop...--Sabrina4226 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. It would really help your case if you could provide links to two or three articles about the 'teen punk' genre in significant music magazines or significant online sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep: It took me less than a minute to find the term used:
Toddst1 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those article actually talk about teen punk. They just use the term with no definition of the genre. One of them actually never mentions the term "Teen Punk" at all. Ridernyc 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response:The point was that the term is used in each of these article that I found in seconds. You were expecting a a dictionary reference? Which of these articles didn't you read carefully to find the term? Toddst1 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm expecting something that supports the claims of the article. One article mentions nothing about teen punk. One uses the term "teen punk anthem" meaning an anthem for teenage punks not a genre. The other mentions a band starting the teen punk scene in DC, but explains nothing further then that. Ridernyc 05:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my response to Delete in light of Sabrina's recent comments regarding possible breach of WP:NOR. Also may fit neologism criteria. Wisdom89 21:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another made up splitting hairs "sub-genre". 22:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Wouldn't it make more sense then to merge a pseudogenre that overlaps with other well established genres into an article? Wisdom89 22:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since this article fails the core polices there is nothing to merge. Ridernyc 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far the only mentions I can find on google simply refer to a teenager who is a punk, not a genre. Ridernyc 00:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay... so if teen punk is the same with punk-pop... why don't appear Skye Sweetnam, Avril Lavigne, Kelly Osbourne in the topic of punk-pop? Because if that appears, other member of wikipedia go to delete that. And the music of that singers are a different style that is "teen punk".

You can see the difference of Green Day to Jonas Brothers? Green Day are a music punk-pop and a lot of punk rock influence, and Jonas Brother are punk-pop with very pop/pop-rock influence... and are very different So, For that i made this style of music... and are popular with don't has info. --Sabrina4226 20:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above arguments that term is possible neologism with little to no actual substance and nothing of note to merge anywhere. Further support RiderNYC's analysis of purportted sources. Finally, Sabrina admits to 'making this style of music', implying it's a WP:OR vio as well. ThuranX 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:COI and WP:OR taken out in a single blow by the above comment made by the non-registered user.--WaltCip 13:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is a Secret account 16:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Chinappa[edit]

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

This is an unsourced biography that is badly written. I think it should be deleted as per WP:BLP. — Ksero (leave me a message, things I've done) 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete please. Beyond salvation. Eixo 09:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete via a combination of WP:V and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas. No merging because it's all unsourced. Daniel 03:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ezhavas[edit]

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

This was deleted, apparently, by accident, as the result of a flubbed attempt to move it (log). I've restored it, but it should have a full discussion. A simple redirect to Ezhava is a possibility. Chick Bowen 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also merged in the history of List of notable Ezhavas, which was deleted as an expired WP:PROD (thus undeleted on request because of this challenge, as consistent with PROD policy). See logs. Chick Bowen 23:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And finally I have found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Ezhavas, except that List of Famous Ezhavas has its own lengthy deleted history separate from the two above (admins see here). I'd like to keep this discussion going, however, just to have a final decision on all of this stuff. If it ends in delete, all of these titles should be protected against creation. If it ends in redirect, all redirects should be protected as well. Chick Bowen 00:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ezhava Tharavads for a sort of precedent. Of course, admins can see why that version was a really bad idea (it was trying to list every family in the caste I think). Recommend salting page as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't merge or redirect. Violation of WP:BLP, WP:V, and is far better covered by our category system. Content should therefore not be merged, and I don't see the need for a redirect. violet/riga (t) 15:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for restoring it. BTW, I am hard pressed to find a reason why this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)

Again why would a topic be deleted and locked up? If a particular article does not meet a standard, that is understandable. However does that mean the topic itself is to be deleted? Is vandalism alone a sufficient reason for deletion? If so, that would be rewarding vandals. Please do not delete this article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unni1 (talk • contribs)


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

The result was keep. The article requires significant work. In particular, the secondary sources need incorporating and it needs the addition of real-world perspective. However, the consensus is clear and the issues are a matter for tagging and improvement not deletion. TerriersFan 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Azkaban[edit]

The article is a lot of fan cruft and original research, and as such there really is no article here. It should be deleted and redirected to the Universe of Harry Potter for a complete discussion of the Harry Potter world. Judgesurreal777 23:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per precedent. Just keep nominating articles for deletion until you get your way, is that how Wikipedia works now? Google Books returns over 600 results (yes, many are Harry Potter novels, but many are not). Google News returns 16,900. There are sources. Poor quality is a reason to improve an article, not delete it. faithless (speak) 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show some links to some actual verifiable sources, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 23:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to several relevant books on Amazon: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Unfortunately, most of these types of books aren't available for full-preview on Google Books, though I found one that discusses it in the way we need, albeit briefly: [6] But do a non-fiction (to exclude the novels and their various incarnations) search for Harry Potter on Amazon; you get literally thousands of results! There are guides and essays and "Harry Potter and Philosophy" type books out there that cover every conceivable aspect of the series. And we're not talking about some unimportant detail mentioned in passing in one of the books, we're talking about Azkaban. As someone else mentioned, it appears in the title of one of the books, for cryin' out loud! The following don't offer much detailed information, but rather mention Azkaban in passing. The fact that these major media outlets (Washington Post, Forbes, USA Today) can mention Azkaban in passing and not bother to offer a detailed explanation of what it is they're referring to shows how notable Azkaban is. [7] [8] [9] [10] This article Is a bit better, in that it is more than a passing mention. Here "Azkaban" is used in the title of a piece from the Denver Post (yes, it's a blog, but it's not some random livejournal, it's a major newspaper). In closing, I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed by Arcayne in another discussion; first, this is exactly the type of thing that people come to Wikipedia for. They hear the word "Azkaban" somewhere, have no idea what it means, so they come here for answers (I know, I know). Also, if this article is deleted, it won't result in the removal of the material from Wikipedia. Rather, the information will creep into other articles because the place where such information should be has been deleted. It is much more convenient to have this article to point users to so that we don't have to go in-depth on a myriad of other pages explaining Azkaban. Let me reiterate that in its current state, the article isn't very good. But sources are out there and the article can be improved. faithless (speak) 09:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term is in popular use, but that isn't the same as notability. If it is used in a lot of articles as a word, great, but that's enough for a dictionary entry; for its own encyclopedia page, we need interviews with Rowling as to how she created Azkaban, instances in the popular culture where it is used, such as when it was mentioned on the television show "The Office". A good article, and especially a featured article, requires many, or at least several very rich sources to use to discuss something like this, and the links you've provided, while good, don't exactly show there is a lot of information on Azkaban in them. It seems like Azkaban deserves a well written blurb in the Harry Potter universe article, not one of its very own. Thoughts?Judgesurreal777 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep Major part of a major series of books. People need to stop nominating every article that they aren't interested in for deletion.--Cartman005 02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable sources? Have you tried the Harry Potter novels which would be the canonical and most reliable source there is? Azkaban is the namesake of the third novel in the series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe what was meant by show verifable sources was show evidence of "significant coverage by reliable indpendent secondary sources" as mentioned in WP:N. [[Guest9999 12:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep per the points already discussed here and in other places like this (not specific to this article, but I think Azkaban is pretty high up on the notability spectrum of that list. — xDanielx T/C 11:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it was kept before does not mean it should automatically be kept again. Remember consensus can (and does) change. [[Guest9999 00:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Well, we've had this discussion many times. I think the rough consensus is that for topics with very very high notability like the Harry Potter series, significant characters/places like Hogwarts and Azkaban merit their own topics, while topics less significant to the story do not. — xDanielx T/C 02:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the discussion continues to come up because the article continues to undercut the assertion that there is notability. It needs some references that we can build the article with, and we haven't yet seen a convincing presentation of information to fill in this article. Judgesurreal777 04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, one of the most notable locations in this series and is even in the title of one of the books. "Azkaban" has also entered into popular culture. --musicpvm 08:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Notable how - just because it is important to the series doesn't mean that it is notable by the standards set out by wikipedia policies and guidelines [[Guest9999 09:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep The problems mentioned by the nominator are reasons for improvement, not deletion. And I just removed the original research part. Edward321 02:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, if for no better reason than it was in the title of one of the books. This is one of those fuzzy areas for notability. shoy (words words) 16:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article (as shown by faithless) is a topic seen in many places. There are also references, and only needs small improvements at most. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if these uses in culture were added to the article, it would help make the article more notable. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Festival holes[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable game author and possibly a small group of others has created. Only has one Google hit- probably the author's. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article to help document a game that has become very popular at Big 10 tailgating events as well as Chicagoland backyard and picnic parties. It has become quite popular and has its own website currently. There is no financial incentive in my posting of this article but rather a way to educate other people who have asked me at recent tailgating events. I believe in time you will see significant activity on this page as well as on its search results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kluczenk (talk • contribs) 23:16, 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 keep: the argument put out there was "is this notable" and hence "should this be in our encyclopedia", to which the consensus was "yes, it is" and "yes, it should". Daniel 03:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Harry Potter[edit]

The article is an in universe list of Harry Potter locations, bereft of any out of universe information, so its just a regurgitation of plot information from the Harry Potter books, and since we already have articles for those, this is just duplicative and should be deleted and redirected to Universe of Harry Potter, which can treat this same subject in a much more encyclopedic way. Judgesurreal777 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per precedent. Many of these survived AfDs by themselves, not that they're merged into one more concise article they should be deleted? faithless (speak) 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI don't see any problem with this page, either. so keep (and perhaps cleanup to remove the repeated, redundant introductions that XYZ is a fictional place - from articles merged into the list). - Mike Rosoft 23:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But neither of you address my contention, which is that there is insufficient notability. Do you think it does? And what would be the proof of that? Judgesurreal777 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way do you feel it is not notable, Judge? This is precisely the sort of article that people would want to find if they come across an unusual place name in the books (Lord knows I did). Individually, the entries probably aren't super-noteworthy. Could it use clean-up? Hell yeah. But as a collected grouping of places in the Harry Potter series, it is notable.
  • Strong Keep - its has a few cruft and arrangement problems, but that doesn't damage its notability. Wikipedia, the Harry Potter wikiproject and Harry-Potter main articles are better off for being able to link to an article that speaks specifically to these areas without having to reinvent the wheel in each article a place name appears. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely some Harry Potters haters out today. The article can always be revised.--Cartman005 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike Rosoft. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To think this is about hate is to completely miss the point; there are many very good Harry Potter articles, some of which are Featured and Good articles, and this article just sucks. And why does it suck? Because it has no out of universe information, like "how was the harry potter world developed?" "what were Rowlings inspirations?" That kind of information needs to be included, and if it cant, the article fails notability and doesn't deserve its own article. Besides, there is already a Harry Potter universe article, which is much better and covers the SAME STUFF, this article is totally unnecessary. Judgesurreal777 15:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Rebuttal - I rather agree that this needn't be (or is even an accurate description of) a fans vs. Everyone Else -type issue. Perhaps you could provide the link the 'Universe of Harry Potter' article, Judge; let us take a look and compare that article with this. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put linked it in my comment above; as you will see, it is a broader topic, and will probably be able to intelligently discuss the Harry potter world Rowling created. The location list offers no such promise. Judgesurreal777 06:31, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active Major League Baseball players who have played entire career for only one team[edit]

Trivial info, most of these players are soon going to be removed from this list (half of them are free agents) violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:LC, prod removed, Delete This is a Secret account 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unmaintainable and as lacking encyclopedic significance. While "played entire career for only one team" is often mentioned as a trivia item about a player who makes the Hall of Fame or retires after a long career, most players who meet this criterion (and the "active" criterion) are prospects who get called up from AAA leagues in September for a bit of exposure to major-league pitching or batting. This topic (if limited to those over some threshold such as "at least 500 career at-bats or 20 career starts or 40 relief appearances" might be appropriate for an almanac of baseball, but not for an encyclopedia of baseball (players retire or get demoted all the time), let alone a general encyclopedia. Barno 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless article, no offense to whoever made it--Yankees10 00:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Semi-interesting trivia about loyal ballplayers, but it's still trivia. Maybe you can merge this somewhere. Mandsford 01:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "active" part pushes me to delete, it's hard to maintain and doesn't really serve a purpose. Wizardman 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintainable ... how has this lasted since May 2006? Blueboy96 23:18, 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 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potions in Harry Potter[edit]

The article is a list of potions from the Harry Potter series, and has no out of universe information, no information on how it was developed, and frankly no hope of getting those things. As such, it is just plot regurgitation, and should be deleted and redirected to Magic (Harry Potter). Judgesurreal777 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see. "No out-of-universe information" - frankly, how much out-of universe information can an article about an aspect of a fictional world have? "No information on how it was developed" - obviously, from material in the books; each entry contains information on just about where and when it was used, and this is the source. On the other hand, I am not sure that Wikipedia neeeds a complete list of Harry Potter potions (we are not a Harry Potter encyclopedia), so no vote - but leaning towards keep as the argument for deletion seems to be invalid. - Mike Rosoft 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But if none of that information exists, how does it deserve its own article? Judgesurreal777 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Seems like a "List of Potions in Harry Potter" with a large amount of in-universe content added. This seems perilously close to cruftiness. We are not a Harry Potter encyclopedia per Microsoft, and it's nothing more than plot summary per Judgesurreal777. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perfect for a fan-wiki, totally unsuitable for wikipedia. I see no potential to make this real-world-encyclopedic. I'd vote transwiki, but I am sure the HP fan-wikis already have at least similiarly well-formatted potion lists.– sgeureka t•c 01:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:FICT. I highly doubt sufficient real-world sources could be found to justify this article's existence. However, transwiki if possible, although as Sgeureka stated, they probably have quite detailed articles on them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidnece of significant converage by reliable seocndary sources - and hence no evidence of notability - I find it very unlikey that the topic will have evr recieved such coverage. This goes angainst WP:FICT and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia and relevant information could possibly be merged to Magic (Harry Potter).. [[Guest9999 07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • In that case, let me suggest to redirect the article to Magic (Harry Potter), and mention some of the potions there, as long as they are a major plot device. (A majority of the potions listed is only given a passing mention in the books, and they don't need to be included in the encyclopedia.) - Mike Rosoft 10:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:Plot and WP:WAF. Ridernyc 22:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. --Mark (Mschel) 03:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Autistic art. --Tikiwont 09:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic artist[edit]

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

Autistic artist is redundant to the article, autistic art. It is an uncited essay, with little content that can't be or isn't included at autistic art, and which provides little more than advert weblinks to artists, several of whom don't appear notable. The notable artists can be added to autistic art, and this article should be deleted. To quote editor Jfdwolff, "If 'autistic art' is definitely a recognised type of art, are all autistic people who practice art automatically 'autistic artists' or practicioners of 'autistic art'?" We don't need articles on autistic musicians, autistic scientistists, autistic footballing, etc., when we already have List of people on the autistic spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 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. Hut 8.5 07:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turfball[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Only displays the rules of the game, with nothing about where it is played, how many people know this game, etc. Not notable. Delete. Blanchardb 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Most encyclopedia articles do not end with the words "HAVE FUN!"

In this case, the idea is that you can hit any object back and forth, with a point to the other side if you fail to hit it back. Everybody's doin' it. Mandsford 01:30, 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. --Tikiwont 09:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evoke (Art Group)[edit]

Evoke (Art Group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Group with no claims of notability. Corvus cornix 22:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's prett well known in the community with many ties with the deviantART community. It's been around for quite a few years --Wilfio 00:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reliable sources for that fact. Corvus cornix 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources have been added to the article. More are on the way.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evoke is quite a phenomenon in the cultural identity of DeviantART. As such, most of the information about the group falls under the category of Self Publishable Sources. The trend in online graphics and design these days is one which is not widely written about in literary circles, yet this does not mean it should go unnoticed. Here are some links showing the popularity/public knowledge of the group among the people of DeviantART and other sites:
http://news.deviantart.com/article/31946/
Evoke frequently gets awards from the DeviantART community for outstanding work, ie:
http://lost-exile.deviantart.com/art/Castle-Of-Fables-68717808
"Daily Deviations" are a rare award on DeviantART, yet Evoke is known for garnering multiple ones with each exhibition.
A simple google search for "EvokeOne" will yield thousands of DA member pages and journals, showing its established nature.
Evoke is a large phenomenon at PhireBrush, an online graphics magazine: http://daily.phirebrush.com/index.php?tag=evokeone
Evoke's members have garnered numerous awards. This article is in a preliminary stage at the moment and so not all have been listed. One artist has had her work published (work for Evoke) in the Expose series by Ballistic Press.
The fact here is this - digital art has almost no attention on wikipedia, despite being a large and growing cultural phenomenon. The only brief mentions of it are concerning DeviantART and a very very dated article on Digital Art in general. Modern day artwork does not fall into either of those categories. And so, we have to rely on Self Publishable Sources for writing about the new digital cultural phenomenon. It is not something that is going to "go away" because there are no books written about it. --RevenantPrime 7:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC-5)
I think it is important to keep this article based on the large lack of information on the subject. Perhaps the members of Evoke could write a larger article about the new digital art scene at large, and mention Evoke in the process? Or perhaps just by expanding the article (which is just a stub at the moment) it could have enough backing to stand as something people should know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevenantPrime (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Lack of published information" about a subject is a reason to eliminate it from WP, not a reason to include it. --- tqbf 03:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there "published information" about a site such as DeviantART? So far as I know, there are no books about it. So we resort to Self Publishable Materials, which are allowed for use given the fact that:

Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: 

   * it is relevant to their notability;
   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
None of the sources for Evoke that are being used violate ANY of these terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. We will revise the article to fit the standards of a quality encyclopedia article (it is rudimentary right now - we cannot write a whole article in one day) but it does NOT violate the terms of use for SELF PUBLISHABLE SOURCES. RevenantPrime 1:18AM (UTC-5)
Whether they are self-published sources does not matter, what matters is the lack of reliable sources. Corvus cornix 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-published information is always a source of last resort, and an article based entirely on self-published sources is not appropriate for Wikipedia. (see WP:SELFPUB, partially quoted above). The one reliable source given (MTV Take-Action-Make-Art competition) makes no mention of this online group. --Phirazo 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Work is currently being done to gather more widely published sources with connections to the group. The problem with finding published sources specifically mentioning Evoke is that the group itself is non-profit. Thus, group members using Evoke work to win awards/etc are unlikely to connect it with their affiliation to the design hub. Concerning the MTV-TAMA Competition, that was used as an example of an award garnered by a member of the group, whose name IS mentioned. Perhaps linking to his Evoke member profile would make this source more usable? Would it be okay to gather a team of people to make a professional article about this group, as well as the online art scene? RevenantPrime 1:46PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.116.36 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment aren't you in effect proposing to form a team of people to do original research, to make the article itself a primary source? It sounds like a better approach would be to form a team of people to get Evoke recognized in reliable sources which could then be cited to justify the article. It sounds like you're conceding that you can't source notability for this article; notability is defined by reliable sources.--- tqbf 18:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not exactly original research. More a collection of materials already out there - i.e. citations from published sources relating to the contents of the article. Thus, the article would become a good source of information on the totality of the information related to the group and online-art, which is, at the moment, quite disorganized. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't believe, since it would not make any original claims, that such an article would be considered original research.
*Idea- although perhaps an article about Evoke solely may not me of general use to Wikipedia, an article about groups such as Evoke, DepthCore, Phirbrush, CGTalk, etc - groups which are in and of themselves self published material. They are a widespread phenomenon - when you go to New York and see an iPod ad, or you see a spiffy Nike commercial or Nokia phone design, it is probably someone in one of these groups behind it. One problem with writing an article in a FREE encyclopedia on this material is that much of the material is heavily copyrighted. Perhaps using some work from Evoke as an example, work that could be released from copyright (I could arrange for this), could form the basis for an article on this growing cultural phenomenon? Maybe mention the group in the larger context of this largely unmentioned subject.RevenantPrime 1:57PM, Nov 9 2007 (UTC-5) —Preceding comment was added at 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission - long story short, it isn't enough that a copyright holder allows use on Wikipedia only, the copyright holder must release the work under a free license (typically GFDL, Creative Commons (but commercial use must be allowed), or the public domain). However, non-free media can be used in Wikipedia under the doctrine of fair use (see WP:NFC), so it is not necessary to get permission. --Phirazo 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read this information and, as an artist myself, am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policy on copyright. Some members of the group have volunteered to play lower resolution, watermarked versions of their work under public domain or Creative Commons licenses so that they may be used as examples for a possibly broader article on digital art as a whole.--RevenantPrime 18:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but could you provide any sources for the assertion that members of groups like this have developed iPods ads, Nike commercials or Nokia phone designs? I'm pretty sure these are all developed by in-house designers or design agencies. I don't see how a group like this has anything to do with it. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course most of that work is done by in-house designers and design agencies. People in such agencies are also often found in this type of group. It is sort of like a graphics collective where people are picked out of the group when they are good enough to become professional and work for a group such as Platinum-FMD (a for-profit graphics group). In any case, some members are active in both commercial and personal endeavors, here are a few sites of people in Evoke and DepthCORE (a similar project to Evoke) active in profit and group activities:
http://www.superlover.com.au/
http://www.shinybinary.com
http://hejz.com/
http://www.aeiko.net/
http://www.colorbunch.com/
http://www.dopaminart.com/home
http://sumeco.net/
http://www.xtrabold.net/index.html
http://www.crisvector.com/
http://www.jesar-one.com/start.html
http://andrewhefter.com/index.php
RevenantPrime 01:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're still discussing this article, and since you have two contradictory votes in the debate, can you <strike></strike> the text of the vote you don't currently support? --- tqbf 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Article has shown that there are reliable sources to back it up, and there are more sources being located to corroborate information for a broader article on online digital art.--RevenantPrime 18:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)--RevenantPrime 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Ted, are you Ted Yavuzkurt, a co-founder of this group? If so, you should disclose your WP:COI. If not, I apologize. --- tqbf 18:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - where should I post that? I am merely acting as a compiler of information for the article as most other in the group/with knowledge of it do not know how to edit such an article. The text contained is primarily written by others who have submitted to me by email. In fact the whole idea to start the article was via someone sending me an email saying I should do an article on digital art groups and such since Wiki is deficient in the area.--RevenantPrime 19:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - perhaps I may not be the best person to post up the contents of this article. Since it seems like it will be deleted, do you think it would be a conflict of interest to write a broader article about the digital-art scene, including references to Evoke? Or perhaps I could have my material perused by a third party who could then edit and post what he/she feels is neutral? (I don't feel I've posted anything in this article that would qualify as vanity - most things are backed up).--RevenantPrime 19:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. WP already has coverage of DeviantART; maybe that's a good place to start, and perhaps some of that content should be factored out into a seperate artgroup article. A good faith start might be to concede (via a delete here) that the article you wrote covering your own group isn't the place to do that.--- tqbf 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - all the current sourcing in this article remains WP:SPS, or not relevant to the actual article. None of the "keep" in this debate addresses the argument for deleting it. --- tqbf 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article cannot be considered entirely neutral (despite most content being posted verbatim from emails by others). Will integrate some content with article on DeviantArt and possibly a separate article on online artgroups in general.RevenantPrime 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, self-promotion issues, no notability established. AlistairMcMillan 20:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE In the interest of WP:BITE --- The article's original author and proponent here has conceded the issue. --- tqbf 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hahnchen 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warcraft universe[edit]

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

Reads like a plot summary and apparently is, which is what Wikipedia is not.

It has poor use of sources to reference its relevance to the real world. Chances are, readers who do not play the Warcraft games will have interest in reading this article due to its lack of significance to the real world, failing notability.

It also appears to be gamecruft, which ends up being an attractor to original research, furthering it from having a reliable source.

With the lack of notability to the real world, having only one source, and reading like a plot summary, this article has too many issues for it to stay. IAmSasori 22:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there is some assertion that this can be talked about intelligently, AKA with creator commentaries, early designs, design evolution, it is just plot stuff taken from other articles. Judgesurreal777 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the article is salvageable, and we have articles about many fictional worlds; I dare say keep and cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 23:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly certain such information could be found per WP:FICT. Given how long the series has been running, as well as the numerous games featured in it, information likely could be found to make it similar to articles such as Ivalice or World of Final Fantasy VIII. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hate Warcraft but it seems like an important topic. Article can easily be fixed.--Cartman005 02:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree the article needs massive reworking. But I think the subject is noteworthy enough to be included. Ccehlers 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)— Ccehlers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep there should be some sort of overview article on the Warcraft fictional universe. 132.205.99.122 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem with this one as long it's keeps up the real world context and dose not bury itself in pure fiction like the other Warcraft articles. Needs to be cleaned up but has the potential to be one of the only Warcraft articles worth keeping.Ridernyc 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I see no reason for it's deletion. It's a good article. It's also not very long, so cleanup would take less than an hour. --businessman332211 04:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasons given by nominator unsourced, original research, and fancruft are grounds for improvement, not deletion, and by nominator's own admission may not be relevant to this article. Nominator claims unnotable and yet provides no indication of what notability criteria they think this article fails. Most importantly claim by nominator that topic is non-notable because non-fans would not read it shows a lack of understanding of notability. I am not a fan of hip-hop or opera - but the 'fact' that only fans would read those articles does not mean those articles are non-notable. Edward321 06:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am rather anti deletionist in any case, but this article has real potential. Sure, it's not very good at the moment, but it's the stuff that featured articles can be made from. There is a lot that could be said which hasn't, despite a lot of stuff to be pruned. There is no reason to delete it. I also agree with the previous "keep" comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzibloke (talk • contribs) 14:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - (quality of the current stage of editing aside) An article about the Warcraft Universe is entirely called for. If Wikipedia didn't have an article about the setting of the world's most popular video game, that would seem a bit odd.... -Harmil 23:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward321. Articles that need to be improved should be improved, not deleted. And there's no deadline for improvement. And just because someone is unfamiliar with something is not evidence that the subject isn't notable. Rray 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a research synthesis is a perfectly acceptable source in academic research. With thousands of users and players and dozens of articles on the real world effects and applications of the WoW MMORPG, articles like this need to be improved, not deleted. Improving requires work, deleting is not work. Web Warlock 16:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What's wrong with it being about the game? When I looked at the article, I wanted to learn about the game. Sure it needs some real world info, but what's wrong with telling us about a video game? I'm sure the majority of people that come to it don't go there wanting to read nothing but quotes from Blizzard Officials and a tiny bit of info about the game. What's it's relevance to the real world? How about the fact that I've put tons of hours into all the games? And a lot of my friends? I say keep it, and just add the info you want. If this article is deleted for being so much about story and little else, you should just go ahead and erase every video game article off of here and make sure they all turn into info on nothing about the developers and development of the game. And in return I'll never, ever look to Wikipedia for video game info again. -- MaxDuo (talk) 18:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Kelly[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Virtually no career and no coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (it's "Kelley", by the way), she has a long resume for guest starring on TV shows, but the article's only claims of notability are to a show which doesn't even exist yet, and a one-off guesting appearance. Her imdb entry doesn't show anything really notable. Corvus cornix 22:56, 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. Merge isn't even considered due to a lack of references, and regardless there's a consensus to delete anyways. Daniel 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adults on the autistic spectrum[edit]

Adults on the autistic spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Adults on the autistic spectrum has been tagged as an orphaned, uncited essay since June. The only articles that link to it are sociological and cultural aspects of autism and List of autism-related topics. There is no accurate, cited content in this article which isn't or can't be covered in autism, autism spectrum, sociological and cultural aspects of autism or List of people on the autistic spectrum. There is no cited content to be merged: the article should be deleted as part of the ongoing cleanup and consolidation of the walled garden and POV forks in the autism-related articles. There is no need for a separate article, when adult issues, separate from issues affecting all people with autism, can be covered at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article doesn't seem to cover any material that can't be fully covered in the other autism related articles, and it doesn't have any cited content that's lacking from those articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced essay that, as Sandy says, adds nothing that isn't covered better elsewhere. The short but unsourced list of people is a WP:BLP violation. Colin°Talk 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Needs sourcing, but that by itself is not areason to delete. I removed the entire lsit of people as violating BLP. Bearian 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read several of the recent reviews on autism, and this text is not going to be sourced to reliable sources. It's original research, synthesis, essay. Anything that can be sourced can be added to List of people on the autistic spectrum, Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, autism spectrum or autism. There is no need for a separate article on adults, and not enough published info specific to adults with autism to warrant a separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Skomorokh incite 11:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reads like an essay and doesn't seem improvable. The content that can be cited could be merged. Keeper | 76 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non - admin closure. Best suited as an example of Green flourescent protein. due to the more general nature of this topic. No need for an article about every green fluorescent animal every made ... :: maelgwn - talk 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorescent green pig[edit]

Fluorescent green pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I question notability: only one major piece of news coverage, BBC, only other major coverage off Boing Boing. Only 614 ghits Computerjoe's talk 22:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It just goes to show how far genetic engineering has advanced, that we now take things like this for granted. Green pigs, yawn, anyone can do that, right? If notable only means "popular", I'd add that besides BBC, it's been covered by CBS News, ABC News, MSNBC, and who knows how many magazines and newspapers. Mandsford 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was ONLY on BBC. Not that important... I'm sure more information will come up that can be added.--Cartman005 02:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know... if you look for "green pigs" instead of "green-glowing + pigs" you'll find these: [www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/13/earlyshow/living/petplanet/main1206675.shtml]

[abcnews.go.com/Technology/Health/story?id=1498324 -] [www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16385433/ - 47k] Mandsford 18:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added several other news sources. By the way, you forgot to tag the article for AFD (this doesn't happen if you follow the directions in the right order); I fixed that for you. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Green fluorescent protein where it almost duplicated in entirety anyway. Its a cool experiment that got picked up on a slow news day and syndicated. Its never going to be more than a stub, unlike Glofish which are genuinely notable for being commercially available transgenic animals. We don't (and shouldn't) have articles for Green fluorescent mice, rats, rabbits etc, yet they were all made and noted in the press at the time, nor do we (or should we) have articles for Red haired Neanderthal [11]. Rockpocket 03:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Organisms spliced with GFP is standard procedure in molecular biology and genetic engineering so I'm not thrilled with the development. I would be interested if there is something peculiar in mammalian DNA that inhibits the gene's uptake. However, the general public seems to be fond of glowing organisms (I don't know why we don't have articles for flourescent green bacteria, butterflies, flies, mice and fly catchers). Personally, should the article be kept, I want the article merged into an article titled "organisms transformed with GFP or luciferase" to satisfy the curiosity of the general public. Otherwise delete it since the GFP covers it in a one liner anyway: "To date, many bacteria, yeast and other fungal cells, plant, fly, and mammalian cells have been created using GFP as a marker."--Lenticel (talk) 03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Rockpocket. While individually notable, I don't think there is much notable difference between green flourescent pigs and green flourescent anything else. But this would fit well alongside mention of other such uses of GFP. This is popular enough that we might eventually have an article just on GFP's application, and there really wouldn't be much point having cookie cutter articles on every species ever made to glow. Someguy1221 07:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why should this be deleted?? I do not understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderpiggy (talk • contribs) 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Individuals have explained their reasons above. If you disagree, feel free to say why. Rockpocket 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable genetic engineering, with worldwide news coverage. 132.205.99.122 20:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and merge as an example of use of the protein. Keeper | 76 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Flag Desecration in the United States[edit]

American Flag Desecration in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Irredeemably POV, redundant to flag desecration. Blueboy96 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no--just delete the thing. Who's gonna search for "American Flag Desecration in the United States"? Blueboy96 22:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Blanchardb 22:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No merge, no redirect, per Blueboy. Mandsford 00:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant, verging on WP:POVFORK. Reads a bit like an uploaded school paper. --Dhartung | Talk 03:04, 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 Redirect to List_of_notable_Yu-Gi-Oh!_cards after merge already done--Tikiwont 10:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Beast Cards[edit]

Sacred Beast Cards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Like the Legendary Dragon Cards, their relevance is to the anime only: they do not appear in the manga and are not considered popular in the real card game. Suggest Delete and Merge to Egyptian God Cards, as the Sacred Beasts are primarily based on them, and a similar sub-entry (Wicked God Cards) already exists on the page. The Clawed One 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. I also suggest that we rename the article main article (or start a section) so that it will characterize both the Wicked Gods and the Sacred Beasts. I have no suggestions for now so this is optional--Lenticel (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but not to Egyptian God Cards; those cards are not playable in the trading card game. Instead, it should be merged to List of notable Yu-Gi-Oh! cards, since you actually can use the Sacred Beasts in the game. JuJube 03:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On that note, since the Wicked God cards are now playable in the TCG, they should be moved into the notable cards article as well. JuJube 03:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. I'll move the two sections over now. The Clawed One 05:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep There is no need to start an AFD for a merge proposal. You cannot merge and then delete the article; the authors of the original text must be credited under the GFDL, so of course keep for a future merge. hbdragon88 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge has already happened, so now it's just a matter of deleting the original page. The Clawed One 16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't delete it with merged information. Authors of the original text must be credited. hbdragon88 22:12, 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 merge both. Daniel 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mycetic spore[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional technology that lacks reliable sources to indicated any real-world notability, or context for this entry. While the Tyranids are notable, I'm not sure that every technological transportation device used by them is — and a search for sources that backs up real-world notability has come up empty. A prod template was deleted without comment, or any address of these concerns, by another user. I recommend merging this back to Tyranids, or transwiking it. Haemo 21:19, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish architects[edit]

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

Redundant. Link-for-link copy of Category:Turkish architects, and no other content. ~Matticus TC 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing in this article that can't be covered by the category. As a minor and mostly irrelevent aside, it isn't even named properly as a list. Tx17777 20:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note the editor, User:Ozipozi has created a lot of "List of Turkish [something]" articles that appear to be simply identical copies of existing categories with no other content. I understand lists have their purposes, but am I wrong in thinking these aren't going to serve any purpose the categories aren't already doing? ~Matticus TC 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's another Turkish list here: List of Turkish footballers, what a waste of time.RMHED 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of writing, the same user has created no less than 78 "List of..." pages. [12]. Now, I'm not about to mass-nominate the lot, and some of them do have value as lists, but a quick random sampling shows much the same pattern in most of these articles - duplicates of existing categories with little to no other content. ~Matticus TC 21:50, 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 since the lack of reliable sources has not been adressed. --Tikiwont 10:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Taylor[edit]

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

I suspect some if not all of the information here is either a hoax or simply plain wrong. Although I'm not questioning the existence of a Rowan Taylor, it seems that if the information contained in the article is accurate, reliable sources should be a little easier to come by that what I've found. It seems a little odd to me that the only source is a obituary from a blog. Unless someone can find sources, I recommend deletion for the reasons of disputed factuality Tx17777 20:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something does in fact smell funny here, I'm just not sure what it is. One would think that the claim of "one of the most prolific composers of all time" would be backed up someplace where one could find it - but I can't, and neither can these folks on the Classic Music Guide forums. There are under 300 Google hits on his name, and many of them are in the Mormon sphere; it appears he was known in that area, but beyond that, there's not much to go on. Delete unless someone can track down some rock-solid sources to indicate notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:RS can be found; we can't hang an article on a blog obit. He was real as far as I can tell and there may be something to the "most prolific" claim, but it is one made by sources of dubious independence from him. As it is, borderline WP:PROFTEST and failing general notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He existed, all right. Notability may be another issue. An OCLC search turns up five of his scores, including his 1957 MA Thesis at Brigham Young University, which was his Symphony No. 7. The other works are all more recent, and are "reproduced from manuscript" in holdings of various libraries, except for a piano piece, He Annointed the Eyes of the Blind Man, found in a published collection of sixteen short pieces, Mormoniana, (New York: Mormon Artists Group Press, distributed by Mormon Arts & Letters, 2004, ISBN 0850510112), and includes a CD recording. A Google search turns up a dozen or so musicians who list Taylor amongst their teachers.--Jerome Kohl 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought—more of a question, really. The body of the article cites a number of "Who's Who" type books. Entries in such books can be (and often are) little more than vanity-press entries, written by the subject. However, some have higher standards than this. I don't see a specific guideline in WP:RS for this kind of book. What is the consensus on their status, and, if they are even marginally respectable, wouldn't they better be put in a reference list and be cited as reasons for keeping this article?--Jerome Kohl 23:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Normally such books are not used to justify notability (whereas various "dictionaries of national biography" often are). They are not in depth enough to provide more than verification of certain aspects of a person's career, and for anything controversial they should be avoided, but in general I don't think we need a hard rule against ever using them. --Dhartung | Talk 03:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reply As someone who is listed in a few of those "Who's Who" books, I know what I am talking about: not a source for notability at all! All info in those books is provided by the subjects themselves and, as far as I can see, not checked by the editors of Who's Who. So these are not independent sources to start with. Also, one can get into those by self-nomination, or they can get to you (by ways that I have no clue about). They mainly try to sell you their (expensive) books or (equally expensive) plaques that you can hang up in your office to brag about your inclusion. (Guess how much money I spent on this crap.... :-) --Crusio 21:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and stubbify - I have found some sources online using a search engine. I'm not sure if anyone will prove he's a notable composer outside of Mormonism, but I think there might be enough reliable material out there to at least create a verifiable article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that you add a "References" section containing some of these reliable sources that you have found. (This would be the most potent argument for Keeping.) The best source my own Google search turned up was the obituary, which I duly added. As has been pointed out already, this is merely a blog (as opposed to an obituary in a newspaper or magazine), and an External Link, as well (not a "Reference" or "Source" or entry in a "Bibliography"). FWIW, I have also searched OCLC (with results described above), as well as JSTOR, Music Index, and RILM, none of which yielded so much as a single hit.--Jerome Kohl 07:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it necessary that he is notable "outside Mormonism"? As far as I am concerned, notable (whether within or outside one's own community) is just that: notable.... --Crusio 21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 16:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claim of notability seems to rest on him being the most prolific composer ever. A wee google turns up this musicweb-internatinal.com article MusicWeb Christmas Challenge: Who was (or is) the most prolific composer of all? which notes that 1) Wikipedia's article on Georg Philipp Telemann states that the Guiness Book of World Records states that Telemann is the world's most prolific composer (here) 2) several other candidates can reasonably lay a claim to the title too, and 3) that Wikipedia also includes the same claim for Rowan Taylor, but goes on to say of the Wikipedia article:

    "This cites respected publications such as Who's Who in the World as listing him but a check of the 2004 edition didn't find an entry for him (he died in 2005). We were also sceptical about him because a search of the Pierce College website - he definitely taught there for many years - failed to find anything. In the end we resorted to searching Grove Online and found about 45 people with Taylor as part of their name - none of them were called Rowan. We do know that he wasn't a complete figment of someone's imagination, but the lack of an authoritative source made us unable to accept the claims made in Wikipedia about the number of his compositions."

    If all the unsourced claims of dubious truth are removed then we are left with a stub, but one with no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pete Hurd. The only item in the article potentially notable is the claim of having conducted the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. But like the "most prolific" claim, it needs to be put in context. Leopold Stokowski is a notable figure, but not everyone who played string bass for him is. Lukas Foss is a notable composer, but not all his students are. Also the length of study is important. (I had a one-hour composition lesson with Luciano Berio once--that does not make me a student of Berio's). In the end we have no cited pieces, major publisher, discography, links to performances, etc. Does not suggest notability. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, apparently. Daniel 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OpenProj[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7. Hu12 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's presently more active on SourceForge[13] than projects (with articles) such as Pidgin, Inkscape, and wxWidgets. It survived AfD just two weeks ago, give it more time to improve. (SEWilco 17:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Notablility is distinctly seperate from "fame" or "popularity". A subject is sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guidelines, in which case OpenProj does not.--Hu12 17:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for now - I may be slightly biased as I'm a SourceForge junky who's been watching the project grow and progress, but renominating an article after two weeks is a big no-no in my books, except when circumstances change or new evidence is brought to light. — xDanielx T/C 11:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was nominated previously as a Contested Speedy WP:CSD#A1, as "little or no context". Previously This was speedy deleted twice as Spam WP:CSD#G11. As noted by the context of the last debate even bringing this article to AFD was noted by one editor as unecessary..."The administrator's decline of the speedy request was bizarre". OpenProj Has had four (4) months to either be expanded or fix the previous problems. It is not Wikipedia's mission to promote or advertise non-notable software. This is an encyclopedia.--Hu12 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand your analysis. This article has existed for around 2.5 weeks, not 4 months (we can't count older CSD-spam'd versions, since editors can't build off of deleted content). And the result of the very recent AfD was Keep, not Keep on the condition that notability skyrockets in the next week. — xDanielx T/C 02:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. An AfD filed less than a month after a prior AfD that voted "Keep' is an AFD filed in Bad Faith. jonathon 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone without justification of making Bad faith nomination is considered a form of personal attack. --Hu12 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD was closed "keep" on 29 October 2007. The second AfD was filed 8 November 2007. IOW, less than ten days after closing, it was renominated. From WP:NOTAGAIN "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Pay attention to that last phrase. jonathon 01:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a flawed assertion. Three votes were "Week Keep" and one keep. The essay WP:NOTAGAIN clearly notes An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change. WP:NOTABILITY was not the reason for its previous nomination[14]. It is hardly frivolous in any sense of the term to seek broader consensus.--Hu12 02:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but not in the course of a week. — xDanielx T/C 04:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but inclusion criterion does not.--Hu12 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the guidelines on what makes software notable, the following factors are to be considered:

  • List of Reviews in:
   * Newspaper articles;

= check 

   * Books;
   * User Guides;
   * TV Documentaries;
   * Magazine Reviews;

= check

  • List of distributions that include it;

= unknown

  • List of:
   * Multiple non-trivial articles;

= check 

   * Reliable published works:
         o newspaper and magazine articles;

= check 

         o books;
         o television documentaries;
         o websites;

= check 

         o published reports by consumer watchdog organizations;
   * Awards it has won;

= check 

   * Distribution channels;

= unknown

Obviously the article needs a lot of work. The only component of the software notability criteria that it might not meet is distributions that include it. jonathon 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per consensus as not meeting notability set forth at WP:MUSIC. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine's Garden[edit]

Augustine's Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band appears not to be notable; according to article have only sold 1000 copies of 1 album. No independent sources have been added for verifiability. Article was created with many spam links (which have since been removed). Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Delete? . I was a founding member none of the links were spam, they were to show notability that we were an active band. The 1000 thousand copies was from us sending our ADAT tapes to Disc Makers to have 1000 copies with a UPC code produced. Look at the client list at Audio-Chroma.com, Search in Google under Augustine's Garden and we're the first thing above all else that comes up. I don't understand this Wikipedia thing as to how to decide if this a legit band. Slingshot 57 are my personal friends and they are completely independent which is exactly the Augustine's Garden case. So how can one like myself add an honest article without someone saying it's not honest? I can call independent sources and have them add for verifiability if that's what it takes. But I think this is silly. No spammer would be this bold to prove relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxo (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Nothing to demonstrated notability per guidelines. The question isn't whether or not it is a legitimate band, but whether or not it is a notable enough band to be included in wikipedia. There are criteria to meet, see Wikipedia:Notability (music). Trivial mention in The Observer here but that's about all I could find. --BelovedFreak 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I read the guidelines. Go ahead and delete as I already went ahead and got rid of the info on the pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxo (talk • contribs) 9 November 2007
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Namek saga[edit]

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

Poorly written and mispelled recreation of the redirect Namek Saga that is now merged with Freeza Saga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect to Freeza Saga and a lesson on using talk pages to reach consensus for all parties involved. Edit wars are not the way to go. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Namek saga merged with the Frieza Saga (the CORRECT English spelling of Frieza)? They are two different sagas. I say they should be split up. TJ Spyke 01:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has already been discussed at wikiproject Dragon Ball. the sagas were merged into their original japanese names to make the articles less sparse and bloated. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the project wasn't content with having character articles go against policies and guidelines (by being at their Japanese name rather than their English names), but also want sagas grouped that way? This is why I rarely even look at DBZ articles any more. There have been attempts to move them to the right names, but the DBZ Wikiproject always show up in numbers to stop that (it took a few tries, but they eventually got Hercule moved to Mr. Satan). TJ Spyke 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect per jonny-mt. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:26, 7 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, DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:24, 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 per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pushplay Productions[edit]

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

No cited sources for verifiability and no assertion of notability. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All this constitutes is the notification of some company in Eugene that does video production. Kind of spammy, but not quite db-spam material. My finger is itchy, but I can't find the rationale for a speedy. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:18, 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 per CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chalmers Computer Society[edit]

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

A university computer club. (Checks again). Yup, that's about it. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possibly Salt This article has already gone through AfD once, been deleted and recreated, yet still shows nothing to assert notability. Tx17777 20:19, 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 delete. W.marsh 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Wahabi movement[edit]

Indian Wahabi movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • The word Wahhabi itself is a derogatory term, as noted in the very article on Wahhabism; there is no group, in Arabia, India, or elsewhere referring to itself as this.
  • Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, for whom this movement is named, not only didn't start any new movement called "Wahhabism", but his personal influence during his lifetime never went outside of what is modern day Saudi Arabia.
  • Syed Barlevi, the person cited in the article as the founder of this so-called "Indian Wahabi" movement, was actually a Sufi, a movement that actually exists and is quite different from what is usually ascribed to "Wahabis".
  • There are no actual citations in the article supporting it's factual or historical accuracy (which as i've already explained is highly dubious).
  • The sole external links is an extremely partisan site that itself provides no citations for it's claims - which are more or less copy pasted into this article - containing simply the same claim of this movement without any proof. The article was written by a medical doctor, not a historian, and the site itself seems to be some sort of a commercial site geared mostly toward selling merchandise, not provided academic and reliable information on history.

With all of this in mind, the article in and of itself at least qualifies as wholly unsubstantiated and possibly created as an advertisement for the above site. However, considering that Syed Ahmed Barlewi was involved, that makes me suspect is as being an attack page even more; the Barelwi and Deobandi articles (about two rival Muslim religious movements in India) are constantly hit with blatant POV due to members of the opposing side, and this wouldn't be the first attack page i've nominated for speedy due to this behavior that's spilled over here onto Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo 20:04, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starbrights[edit]

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

An unencyclopedic article on a duo, complete with information on how their CD might be ordered. Fails WP:MUSIC. Only reference to notability, that they have "won several contests including best singer title awards and outstanding performers of the year!", is unreferenced. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 19:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC, among other things. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. The article is a copyvio from the group's MySpace page [15]. Bláthnaid 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless anything can be found to demonstrate notability. As it stands, fails WP:MUSIC, probably WP:COI too, looking at the name of the article creator.--BelovedFreak 22:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COI amongst others - single user account creation exclusively for creation of this article only re-enforces COI. Other reasons as per stated above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:48, 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. Daniel 03:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orxata Sound System[edit]

Orxata Sound System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Admin removed prod with the words "not applicable". Since there are no third-party sources, nor indeed, i believe, any assertion of notability, i think it is applicable. so here we are. tomasz. 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:CSD is not applicable here, because there are a lot of trivial links relate to this band. Carlosguitar 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, yes, there are links (three, and none of them third-party), but there's still no assertion of notability, which i think makes CSD:A7 applicable. tomasz. 19:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 is not used when is not possible to find reliable sources. We need consensus via AfD to delete these types of articles. Carlosguitar 20:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's incorrect. The A7 criterion specifically says:

    "No indication of importance/significance. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources."

    Zetawoof(ζ) 20:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-notable article (WP:MUSIC) is not an article without assertion (A7). We cannot use A7 here because of trivia sources found via Google. [16] If the article is controversial is better to nominate for deletion not using speedy criteria. Carlosguitar 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it that were the case then no articles about music groups would ever be speedily deleted. Again, to quote A7, An article about a real person, group of people, band, etc. "Band" refers to music band, obviously, so CSD A7 is specifically designed to include bands and groups. CSD A7 is related to the content of the article, not how many Google hits the subject gets. There is no assertion of importance in this article, so it is technically A7. It's slightly worrying that you, being an admin, don't fully understand the speedy deleteion criteria. Crazysuit 22:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GHITS is not the argument to keep nor to delete. I never said that this band is notable, what I am saying is the WP:CSD#A7 is not applicable here, that is a lot different. CSD should be used on a case-by-case basis and that is what I am doing. It is slightly worrying if an admin delete a unreferenced article (A7) created by a newcomer when the sources may be found using Google. I am sorry, but no A7 is not applicable here. Carlosguitar 23:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reset indent) This might be down to a misunderstanding of the way you used "not applicable" regarding A7 here. I had the impression you were saying that tomasz was incorrect for tagging this as A7, so I defended tomasz's (correct) use of the A7 tag. But now I think you just meant that you were removing the tag because you believed this band are potentially notable, which is different. I agree that an article tagged as A7 shouldn't be speedily deleted if it might be notable, but my point was that anyone who tags an article with no assertion of importance as A7 is correct in doing so (though that doesn't necessarily mean that article article must be deleted). Crazysuit 06:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand if tomasz did a poor search and believed that Orxata Sound System has "no importance". On the contrary it is far away to be delete by speedy criterion and A7 is used incorrectly to say that this article is non-notable and unverifiable. Anyone? Never! The trivial citation from independent sources that I posted above, cut out any argument that this band is has "no importance". Carlosguitar 00:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - the article is very new, and has never been tagged as unreferenced (I've now done so). We should give it an opportunity to have references added. I don't read Spanish, so I cannot evaluate the results, but a search through the Gnews archives show that they have been at least mentioned in newspapers so there is some possibility to find sources to support notability for the band. -- Whpq 17:20, 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, Coredesat 04:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Along similar lines to Whpq, I think we need to be careful about the language bias here. Most of the possible references are not in English. Bondegezou 13:43, 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, W.marsh 19:43, 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. — Scientizzle 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MailChannels[edit]

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

First off: possible conflict of interest issues with the article creator, but that's not why I'm nominating it. I'm nominating it because although the article is well-sourced, and notability is ostensibly asserted, all the sources seem to be about the concept, rather than the company. In my eyes this makes the concept - tarpitting to prevent spam - notable, but not the company itself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 09:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition by the MIT Spam Conference establishes notariety. The newspaper articles referenced provide coverage of the spam conference awarding the company's founder the "Best Paper Award." Someone deleted a previous reference to a blog posting by Nick Shelness, who is the former CTO of Lotus -- arguably a good source on the topic of electronic mail. If someone could put that blog post back in, I think the notariety of the company would be reinforced. Additionally, I wonder why TurnTide is considered sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? There are only two references: one speaking of Symantec's acquisition of the tiny startup, and another bit of puffery from the Internet Research Group. MailChannels technology is as significant as TurnTide, so IMHO it is notable and should be in the Wikipedia. Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Washington Post Article referenced in MailChannels is all about MailChannels the company. Tarpitting is the general area of innovation, but MailChannels is only one of two company's to ever successfully commercialize this approach, hence the MIT Spam Conference award. "Spammers are impatient, so a Canadian company has developed new technology to capitalize on that impatience to cut the volume of unwanted e-mail messages flooding the Internet." I don't see how this article is about the concept rather than the company:

"The company has secured customers in a wide range of fields since its founding in 2003. The city of Richmond in British Columbia reported halving its spam volume after deploying the company's software across its government networks. Cornell University and Northeastern University also are clients." This quote does not discuss the technique. It discusses the company.

Please don't delete this article. It is clearly notable.

Thanks, Ken Ken.simpson.mailchannels 04:27, 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, Coredesat 04:54, 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, W.marsh 19:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both the company and the concept are notable. Dhaluza 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The NW and Radar sources are somewhat weak - the former doesn't mention the company and the latter is a blog. The other two external links would be adequate, if merged into the article as proper citations. External links do not a cited article make. The single primary source that is actually used by the article at this point is not really adequate. MrZaiustalk 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11- . nancy 20:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten gronning[edit]

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

Not Notable PhilB ~ T/C 19:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I'm not too experienced... PhilB ~ T/C 19:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done per G11, how do I get rid of this page? PhilB ~ T/C 19:46, 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 per CSD:A7. No assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaatul Islamiyah Society Group[edit]

Jamaatul Islamiyah Society Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable organization. No references beyond its own web site which is thus not WP:RS Prod was dropped with no comment. Obina 19:36, 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 keep arguments were, on the most part, unpersuasive. Daniel 03:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ainsley Brooks[edit]

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

Extra, bit-part actor, and highly unlikely to be the subject of an independent biography any time soon. Sources are not independent. Guy (Help!) 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. He may become notable but he doesn't seem to be quite there yet. Stifle (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable extra. anemone|projectors 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Jane Slaughter is another extra on Eastenders and she has her own page and I feel that Ainsley is more notable than Jane as Ainsley has worked for BBC Radio one, also if someone provides some more sources and an update then I say Keep. Beck 22:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that Ainsley is notable enough, fair enough if he was just an extra, but he has also worked for Top of the Pops and BBC Radio One and soon to be in an upcoming movie. Keep! :) Lillyanntuber 23:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's Notable 208.103.64.99 10:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean - I did some minor tidying, but know nothing about him. I feel he's notable enough, so keep Jemma-ohla 14:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep and Clean up as per all above Youtune989 17:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's 'just' notable, keep and Clean as per all above Fab0u0lous 00:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- our rules say that someone has to produce a reliable source to prove notability per our Notability Guideline. Until someone does that, the article needs to go. I think it will be hard to find such a reference since, using Google News Archive search feature, I found no news items to establish Brooks as notable by our criteria. --A. B. (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind about the references. I guess the external links could be turned into references... but still, delete. --Slartibartfast1992 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William C. Bollard[edit]

William C. Bollard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article about a lawyer was written by a member of his family, from the username, Dbollard99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It was re-created by that editor after having been deleted. The article itself makes no real claim of notability; this is the lawyer of a notable person, who appeared alongside them to discuss their case, but was not the subject of independent coverage in his own right, at least as far as the sources go. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. The article states the reasons for notability (attorney for high profile case w/lots of press coverage). In addition plenty of references. Callelinea 20:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to Duane Chapman. I'm having difficulty finding any evidence of notability for this guy outside of that case. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. notability does not automatically transfer from clients to attorneys. If he starts getting written about as a "go-to celebrity lawyer" or some such, that's different. Right now he's just a mouthpiece for his customer.--Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable--the notability is not for the attorneys--this seems really an attempt to get another article for Duuane Chapman. Really notable roles in multiple cases, when there is documentation for the attorneys specifically being iscussed, would be what is needed. DGG (talk) 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 no consensus. Forming consensus for the categorisation of this page, either with or without the article, can be pursued editorially on the talk page (and this often works better as AfD discussions have one added element which only confuses consensus: that people can give the opinion delete).

I also find this comment to be one which makes me confident that this page can serve an encylopedic purpose into the future, and gives added value to those wanting to keep an annotated list insteading of deleting and categorising it. All-in-all, there is no consensus to delete this article outright and no consensus to delete it and turn it into a redirect. Daniel 10:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nazi Party leaders and officials[edit]

List of Nazi Party leaders and officials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a useless vandal magnet list. The kind of articles listed here are better grouped using categories; we have Category:Nazi leaders, for instance, that already substantially duplicates this article. We wouldn't lose much by just deleting the article; there is no annotation to speak of, and there are no redlinks included as potential topics to write later (they were removed so that false entries would be more easily detected). Right now it's just a drain on resources. Mangojuicetalk 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Saying it's a vandal magnet is a null-arguement. You might as well remove the pages on George W. Bush, Jesus Christ and Jaffa Cakes while you're at it. But in fairness, your weak arguement is backed up by the supporting category. And seeing as there are no red-linked names, then I vote Delete. Lugnuts 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does the category for Nazi leaders contain all these people? No. And would some of them be eligible for inclusion in that category anyway? No, because "Leader" and "Official" are two different terms. Example, Karl Brandt (clicked on randomly) probably doesn't count as a "leader", but being Hitler's personal physician and being tried at Nuremberg he can certainly count as an "official". I'd suggest a small cleanup to improve the article by noting the exact nature of their involvement with the Nazi party on the page. Tx17777 19:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:LC point 7. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel its a weak excuse for deletion based on possible vandalism. Callelinea 20:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many arguments to avoid can we fit in one deletion nom? The only one that might have merit is that it might be better served as a category, but this list can provide more information than a category could, particularly because many of the people on the list wouldn't be notable enough for their own article, but warrant inclusion in a list with historical significance such as this. Also, a category doesn't provide an at-a-glance way of determining what they did or what their position was -- something that is a short bit of information. LaMenta3 20:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It can, but it doesn't. How does this particular list provide more information than a category? Where's all the at-a-glance information that you're talking about? "Give this a chance to work," just like Neville said about Adolf. It's the easy bake article, done with no effort and no attempt to make a list of names. It's not a list of Nazi party leaders, it's a list of articles. If someone had added a sentence about who Gunter d'Alquen was, or why Franz Ziereis is important, that would be different. Mandsford 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete only if a category is created for it.--Cartman005 02:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete if a category is created for Nazi officers, as there is already one for Nazi leaders. Nothing here that couldn't be in a category, which solves the vandalism magnetism. Why is it that the editors who comment in these deletion discussions think it's clever to make rude comments? It doesn't make you look clever. It doesn't even make you look adult. Noroton 02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's because AfD is a snakepit where one expects to be hissed at, emotions run high when it comes to the fate of someone else's work, we're all amateurs pretending to be editors, and, sad to say, being nice usually means having your comment ignored. Which comment do you think people found more interesting -- the one about creating a category, or the one about people who don't look clever or adult? Unless it's a direct personal attack, like "Mandsford, you are an asshole and a liar", I try not to worry about it. Mandsford 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or turn into a category. 132.205.99.122 20:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no rule alt all against having this list as well as a category. That somethign attrracts vandalism is solved by attention from WP editors. "Spam magnet" should never be a reason for deletion, unless we want to stop covering a large range of notable topics because we don't want to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia by editing them. DGG (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For certain low-value articles that tend to attract a lot of vandalism, it seems to me that deletion is a good option if there isn't an editor interested enough in maintaining it. In this case, a category would cover the same territory just as well as it's covered now.Noroton 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism here is basically always directly damaging libel, though. That may also be the case for controversial living peoples' biographies, but since we can't do without those, the solution is to get more people to pay attention and watch for vandalism. Here, categories make a viable alternative, and Category:Nazi leaders already mostly supercedes the list. We have to accept vandalism when there's no alternative, but not when there is one. Mangojuicetalk 12:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question/comment -- you can watch a list for vandalism. Is there a way to watch a category (besides the individual component articles)? I could make a case that it may be harder to manage libelous vandalism by relying on a category than a list. On the other hand, I also suspect that 90+% of vandals wouldn't know to think of vandalizing using category additions. On the whole, I'd say this is a no-brainer keep except for Mango's libel concerns. --A. B. (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, most of the vandalism here is some joker adding a redlink to the list that is probably the name of someone they know in High school. Articles like that won't stay in categories because they'll be A7 speedily deleted. As for high-profile biographies, they are much more heavily watched than this. (Although, if this does get kept, I imagine there will be several more watchers at least.) Mangojuicetalk 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletions. -- A. B. (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorise and Delete - This kind of list only serves a useful purpose if it contains red links for articles that are needed. Categories are automatically created, and hence do not need maintenance. They thus serve the purpose much better than lists. Peterkingiron 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have begun an attempt to expand this list into something a little more useful by expanding on the names listed to include a summary of what they did. I believe, given time, this could become a useful resource to use as an overview for what each of the people here did and how senior they were int he third reich's hierarchy. For now I am merely adding a sentence or two to each entry, but given time I think it can be organized into a sensible and useful page. If anyone thinks they can assist in this, please feel free. to help Tx17777 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep....it is a helpful quick reference and map to each individual's page of each person listed here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.177.74 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see no reason for this list considering the categories already exist. As it stands, I think it qualifies as listcruft as established by WP:LC. SorryGuy 05:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Clachan[edit]

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

A non-place. The name is common to numerous small hamlets and simply means 'the village' The coordinates lead to a small off-shore rock. There has been some discussion of this becoming a dab page, but no action to that effect. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From the Survey map, An Clachan seems to be a rock rather than a village. Lurker (said · done) 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it actually is just a rock. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've not actually been there, but I have been on the nearest roads, to Saligo and Sanaigmore, and I am pretty sure that there is just a big nothing north and west of the roads. Braigo, which is this house really, is marked on the OS map, but nothing at An Clachan. If we have an article for every item shown on an OS map, or its foreign equivalents, we'll have billions and billions of its bitsy geostubs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, non-place -Docg 09:25, 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 defer per Eurocopter tigre (talk)'s 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) comment. Daniel 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash[edit]

2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Though this certainly was a tragic event for the families and personnel involved, the crash of a single military helicotper on a training flight with no other mitigating factors may qualify as a news story in Romania, but it is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and it doesn't meet the Project's proposed notability guidelines. I hate to say it, but training accidents happen all the time, and unless there are unusual circumstances involved, it just doesn't rise to the level of encyclpedic notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:

  • 1. The Romanian Ministry of Defense invested over 50 million dollars in a modernisation program for the IAR 330 in cooperation with Elbit Systems. The program started in 1998 and ended in 2005 (2 years ago). So, we have a helicopter crashed after 2 years of its modernization. Was this program a waste of money? - I think this covers a part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines, Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved ... results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. sourced on Romanian Air Force official site
  • 2. The Romanian Air Force attack helicopter fleet currently consists of 23 IAR 330 SOCAT aircraft (yesterday consisted of 24). That means we lost 5% of our attack helicopter fleet during peacetime. Also, this covers another part of the WPAVIATION notability guidelines - It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft. Realitatea, Romania operates 24 IAR 330 SOCAT attack helicopters
  • 4. The aircraft was lost in suspicious conditions, as the weather was perfect and it didn't send any SOS signals to the military air traffic control authorities. Sources mentioned above at #3 are available for this section also.

This is it for now, but I will add things here as soon as I will have more informations. --Eurocopter tigre 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC) -[reply]

    • Comment - the problem is, none of those arguments are arguments from guidelines. And, none of the material in those arguments is included in the article. This really seems like something that is better covered in the text of the article on the actual helicopter. And, all these arguments are OR unless you cite sources. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment - you've added sources above, yes, but they're all in Romanian. Are there any English sources? WP:V doesn't mandate english sources, but it recommends them, and the lack of English sources suggests lack of wider notability. And how is Bucur Nicolae notable? I don't see a WP article on him, and 2700 hours really isn't a lot (wouldn't even get you in the door at most Part 135 operators). AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you telling me that only people who have an article on wikipedia are notable?? --Eurocopter tigre 19:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is a standard we frequently use. Notabiltiy has to be demonstrated somehow, and notability in articles has the same standards. In other words, has or could an article be written about this person? What makes this guy notable? He certainly wounldn't pass WP:BIO. If you think 2700 hours makes someone notable, you need to think again. As I said before, with that little time, there's not a single medevec operator, or fire department who would hire him (usually, min time is 3,000 hours, with 5,000 preferred). Since that's the only information you've provided how else are we to evaluate his notability? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't read my comments carrefully, as i sad at the beginning:Why the article is notable for Romania, as well as Romanian Aviation:. 2,700 flying hours is quite much for the RoAF, which suffered a severe lack of funds after the 1989 revolution, until late 1990s. Also, he was an attack helicopter squadron commander (the RoAF currently operates two attack helicopters squadrons). So, you can't say a person who commands half of an attack helicopter fleet of an air force isn't notable for that air force/country. --Eurocopter tigre 21:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, I did. We don't have separate notability standards for Romania. We also don't have articles for squandron commanders. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • But not all the air forces have the same size, therefore such an accident wouldn't be notable for the US Air Force for example, but it would be notable for Romanian Air Force. Anyway, how about arguments #1&2? --Eurocopter tigre 21:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Let me talk about argument #1&2, #1 is pure speculation since we don't know what caused the accident it's irrelevant who modernized the helicopter and how much money were spent, even if the cause is technical it's still not encyclopedical info, Wikipedia is not to be used to analyze ROI #2 so now Romania has 23 attack helicopters instead of 24 -- bid deal! So if one of the 23 helicopters loses a wheel or something and will remain only 22 operational, will we need an article for that, what if Romania buys a helicopter and has again 24, do we write an article about that too? -- AdrianTM 21:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh Adrian, I think you misunderstood something, as the guideline is very clear in this case: It is the first crash of a particular type of aircraft. --Eurocopter tigre 22:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Um, not it isn't. This is just a license-built Aérospatiale Puma, and they have crashed before. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's what I thought too, and what do you mean by "type of aircraft" if you update electronics it becomes another type? -- AdrianTM 22:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Exactly, the Aerospatiale Puma is an Utility helicopter, while the IAR 330 SOCAT is a particular type of attack helicopter. It is also listed in the Romanian Air Force inventory as a particular type of aircraft - it is not considered a variant of the basic IAR 330. --Eurocopter tigre 22:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Actually, type has very specific meaning in aviation, and the IAR-330 SOCAT is the same type. A licensed-built version of the Puma is still a Puma. If there are modifications, then it is a variant. It only becomes a different type when the design is so substantially modified that it is in all ways a different helicopter. This ain't. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 22:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This crash happened yesterday. Until further information can be obtained, it's probably impossible to say whether this crash is notable or not. I suggest delete but with no prejudice to recreation should any info come out to make it notable (eg. more info on the "suspicious circumtances"} Tx17777 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur - Very well stated - delete with no prejudice against recreation. - BillCJ 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable accident, the pilot while experimented is not a notable person (or celebrity) and the rest are mere speculations, the circumstances are "suspect", but what happens if the forensics reveal the causes and they are no longer "suspect", will we delete the article then? -- AdrianTM 19:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- I'm not sure this is a valid option in an Afd, but it looks like this is still a developing event, and so it's too early to tell whether it's really notable or not. In the meantime, I think it's worth giving User:Eurocopter tigre time to develop the article, and make his case -- he's put quite a bit of work and heart into it (and, I must confess, I lent a bit of a hand), so what's the rush? Turgidson 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources in english:

--Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — While Eurocopter tigre makes a good argument, I do have something to say.
  1. If this incident is important to Romania’s IAR 330 program, it could be mentioned in the IAR 300 page.
  2. First crash for an aircraft is not necessarily notable.
  3. If the pilots are notable, a new page should be made about them.
  4. The only reason it is suspicious is because there hasn’t been an investigation yet.

Also, the other pages mentioned (2007 Hukou F-5F crash, 2007 Shatoy Mi-8 crash, 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash) are definitively more notable. The first resulted in five fatalities, and it occurred during an international military exercise. The second involved 20 fatalities, and the third occurred during an air show. – Zntrip 00:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, for the reasons outlined by Eurocopter tigre. If the article doesn't expand much beyond the present state, consider merging to the IAR 330 article, but let's not kill this just yet. Who knows, it could turn into this. Biruitorul 02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise: As the opinions are very different, some want to keep it, others want to merge it, others want to delete it, I propose the following compromise - Give me 31 days, until the investigation is over, to see if I have enough sources to expand properly this article (maybe the results of the investigations will make this even more notable). If not, I will agree with the deletion/merging of the article. Thoughts? --Eurocopter tigre 11:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support compromise: Sounds like a good compromise to me — along the lines I was proposing above: wait and see, but with a reasonable yet definite upper bound (1 month sounds just about right). This loks like a borderline case to me, but I would err on the side of caution, and giving editors who want to develop an article that has some potential the chance to do it. After all, what's the rush, and what does it cost to keep an article like this one for a while, to see how it goes? I think it's more important to encourage good-faith, enthusiastic editors (such as Eurocopter tigre) in their endeavors, while of course providing needed feedback and reality checks, if necessary. Turgidson 14:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise I think this is reasonable especially that this article is nominated for deletion only for non-notability and somebody worked hard on it (and it's obviously a good faith article) However, I think that in one month substantial info has to show up in order to make this article notable, as it fails this criterion right now. -- AdrianTM 15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - per AdrianTM's comments. - BillCJ 17:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - with a couple of caveats...Tigre actually needs to address this in a month. I've seen cases where promises are made, the time goes by and everyone's forgotten about it. As Adrian says, it fails currently, so I am willing to consider new material/refs in a month, but I don't want to see a month go by and Tigre come up with the same arguments, (that the pilot's notable, or that it's the first of its type, or because Romania is so small). If there is new information that genuinely, without rationalization, supports notability, then I'm all for it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict -Inserted above) Would the SOCAT fleet being grounded be a first step toward notability? (Non-English source, info per Adrian.) - BillCJ 19:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, i'm not that kind o user. Actually, the hole IAR 330 SOCAT fleet was grounded today until the end of the investigations. I've already find the source, and a new section will be added to the article in the next couple of hours. Alan, please consider closing the AfD whenever you think it should be closed (I prefer closing it today, as everybody seem to agree with the compromise). --Eurocopter tigre 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I'm too involved in the discussion here. There's a general rule that if you're involved, you don't close the discussion. I'll let another admin do it. Oh, BTW, I'm not inclined to see the grounding as notable, it's actually SOP to do so in such cases, as a precaution, in case there's a systemic finding. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise - this was my initial idea too, but I didn't want to offend the creator by calling for it. Let's wait a month, then reconsider in more dispassionate terms. Biruitorul 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support compromise — With conditions set by Akradecki. – Zntrip 03:54, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wexelblat disaster[edit]

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

While writing/editing geological disaster articles I came across this one, found it interesting and decided to expand. To my surprize it turned out to be a neologism of very unfrequent use. While the topic seems notable, but the term is not (yet). Nearly all content is sourced from a sci-fi writer Bruce Sterling personal hobby webpage, plus an interview with Wexelblat guy, who playfully says he is "chagrined" with the term (oh really? don't use it yorself, then). Laudak 18:31, 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 (closed by non-admin) as per the consensus. RMHED 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Race 13[edit]

The Amazing Race 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable future season, and WP:CRYSTAL. Place12312 18:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Probably not any less notable than all other seasons with articles. Is also not a case of WP:CBALL, because it quotes the official "APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS" for dates. Lars T. 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The WP:N guidelines for films say "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun." I think it's reasonable to assume that this can be taken to apply for TV shows as well, so for now a paragraph in The Amazing Race article will be sufficient. Tx17777 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. --Thankyoubaby 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable" on its own is not an argument. How and why is this notable, and where is your evidence to back your statement up? Tx17777 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although, having said that, I don't really think notability is the issue here. It's probaly fair to say that this will be notable when it's aired, but at it's still in the earliest of early stages, it's more an issue of WP:CRYSTAL Tx17777 20:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lars T. The crystal ball argument is a non-starter. WP:CBALL refers to systematically-named pages that, while they will exist, don't have any real information about them. TAR13 isn't like that. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The show and series is notable, even if it will be another year for it to be released. WP:CBALL must be imposed per Lars T. Plus, the show will be out next year. BeanoJosh 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this mornings paper, due to the writer's strike, this season has been fast-tracked to air in the spring. 74.245.206.9 05:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lars T. The same discussion happened for the survivor 16 article, and once the applications were available, the results was keep due to clear evidence that the series WILL happen Survivorfan101 14:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good god, the information is solid, coming right from CBS's website. They've greenlit the production - and it's almost inevitable that this would lead to production. This isn't like a movie, and the same criteria don't apply. Even if for some odd reason production was shut down, and it wasn't completed, there would still be an article on this never completed season. I see no point in deleting pages that will only reappear in a few months, and really wish the wikiNazis could perhaps raise the issue on the Talk page before shooting the gun. Nfitz 00:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Info is from the official application. I'm not going to bother to explain the rest, I've said it millions of times in AFDs and I've created some of the Amazing Race articles right from the application. Perfect source. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if the article might not entirely satisfy various criteria at this moment, it very shortly will. --Limegreen 06:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the greenlighting of the season has been confirmed by at least one verifiable secondary source (USA Today). --MASEM 14:04, 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 07:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Quinn (phreaker)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no references, stub content. --- tqbf 18:23, 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. W.marsh 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScrollZ[edit]

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

Much as I hate to do it, I must nominate this article for deletion. It has not established notability, and zero reliable sources (making it entirely original research). For full disclosure, flier (the author of scrollz) and I have been friends for at least a decade (probably longer).

  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The notability of this software is very much in doubt. -- Dougie WII 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator is currently in an edit war regarding a detail in the article, that he was informed by the author of the project (flier) he is wrong about. After constantly reverting my edits knowing he is putting false information into the wiki, he also blanked the talk page where I showed how he was wrong, and now he has nominated this article for deletion, seemingly out of spite. This small edit of trying to fix the error in the article at the request of the project maintainer was my first contribution to the wikipedia project, but now that I see there are people here who abuse power and cause drama, I don't think I will be making any more contributions. This is very sad. --J.maurice 10:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)— J.maurice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I also question whether this article was submitted on AfD in good faith, but that still doesn't change the fact that no notability is clearly asserted. -- Dougie WII 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - With regards to claims of an "edit war" -- I made one change one time. I discussed the matter with flier, the author of ScrollZ, who informed me that there is no, nor will there ever be, an independant reliable source to make any claims in this article verifiable. An unsigned irclog posted to a talk page is nowhere near our reliable source guidelines. Beyond those (fatal) problems, there is no claim to any sort of notability, as evidenced by the WP:RS and WP:OR policy violations. The issue became completely moot when I discovered those violations; thus I nominated for deletion. Hope this clears things up. /Blaxthos 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I hate to admit it, the rationale for deletion seems fairly valid. There are very few citations and Google only generates about 24,000 hits for 'ScrollZ', compared to about 202,000 for 'ircII', 900,000 for 'BitchX', 1,300,000 for 'Irssi', and so on. Rhapsody Scarlet 14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The two articles you mentioned, BitchX and ircII have zero citations or sources, so if you delete this article for lack of sources, you should delete those articles also, under the same logic. We're taking about an IRC client, the fact that "only" 24,000 webpages mention it on IRC-related sites is notable in itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.maurice (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Caknuck per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gakuen Sugar Star. --Tikiwont 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Bianca[edit]

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

NN & COI issues. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gakuen Sugar Star and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haru Kotobakanata. Nominated by VivioFateFan, who didn't quite manage to complete the AfD process Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 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 for the reasons given in the nomination. Bearian 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ถ้าคุณแน่? อย่าแพ้ ป.4![edit]

ถ้าคุณแน่? อย่าแพ้ ป.4! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion in the English language version of Wikipedia unless all foreign-language game show adaptations are automatically notable, which I don't believe to be the case. Also has non-Latin alphabet title, that at least should be changed if the decision is to keep. Dougie WII 17:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or change title to english. Either avenue is a great improvement to wikipedia. Decoratrix 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This show is noted in the adaptations section of Are you smarter than a 5th grader so I see no real need to repeat the gameplay for every foreign language version unless there are any significant changes (although in fairness, the Thai version does actually appear to be in better shape than the main article). Tx17777 20:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are plenty of articles with foreign versions of random TV shows, but move to English title. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFF - if this article said anything different to what is described on the page for Are you smarter than a 5th grader, for example significant differences in rules or format then it might be worthy of being kept. This article does not, it is nothing more than a description of a localized remake. I suppose it could be worthwile to rename to to an english title and put in a redirect, but to keep it is just unnecessary repetition of information Tx17777 21:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect/delete no-one is going to put this in the search bar of the english wikipedia, I wouldn't even know how to do it in this alphabet. Would belong in a country more local too it's wikipedia, where people might actually search in that language, not on the english wikipedia.Merkinsmum 23:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Okay, author is NOT smarter than a fifth grader when it comes to making a title for an article. Written in Thai for no apparent reason other than "just because I can"; a fifth grader would know that the English speakers who might read this just don't have those keys on their computer keyboard. Or that the kids who would look at it would ask, how do you pronounce it? Cute, but dumb. Good article, however. I suggest a move to "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? (Thailand version)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (although a translation of the non-English titles should probably be put into the article on the show). With the exception of the students being in the 4th grade rather than the 5th, which may easily be a cosmetic difference only, there's nothing sufficiently noteworthy about this show by itself to warrant a separate article from the general franchise of "Are you smarter than a 5th grader". See, for example, another internationally successful gameshow, where the only versions to have their own articles are ones with visible differences from the original concept, despite there being a different version for many different markets. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BigHaz. The Thai edition of Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? doesn't sound all that different from the U.S. and other international editions of the show; there's no need for a separate article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to US quiz show, which appears to have been widely franchised. Peterkingiron 00:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

121 Community Church[edit]

121 Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A delightfully praiseful writeup of a church which nonetheless completely fails to demonstrate what distinguishes this church from a hundred thousand others. It exists, it does the things all baptist churches do, and it does them in pretty much the usual way. Guy (Help!) 17:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not all churches are notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Dougie WII 18:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A church is a church is a church. There is nothing in this article to indicate any outside notability. Tx17777 20:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 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. W.marsh 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of SLA-related topics[edit]

This is not a good list, so please delete it. (this comment was by the nom- User:Chiefslaw)

Is this a bad faith nomination? Lunchscale 17:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, bad faith would be if it was his hated enemy's page or something lol, but Chief, you are supposed to say what you don't like about it, is there a reason it should be deleted? See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy :) For instance, do you think it should be a category rather than a list? Nom's name had been accidentally removed- I added.Merkinsmum 18:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete put a few major topics at Second language acquisition as a "See also" section. JJL 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, the article should be renamed. I keep thinking Simbionese Liberation Army 132.205.99.122 20:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LC points 2 and 6. A category would be good. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cynical Orange[edit]

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

I cannot find an assertion of notability. At the very least, it needs to be completely rewritten. THobern 17:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just realised that the whole thing is a word for word plagiarism, although it does give a misleading citation.--THobern 19:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody with the know how please delete this then? Thanks.--THobern 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
If consensus decides to delete, then the closing administrator will delete the article. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, cheers.--THobern 11:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Gothic art movement[edit]

Neo-Gothic art movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable group which seems to exist only to promote one artist (the twice-deleted Charles Moffat). All the links go to a website which attempts to position this as an art historical movement, but that website is a promotional vehicle for Moffat. As such, there are no other sources for this as an art movement. freshacconcispeaktome 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —freshacconcispeaktome 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provded to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will change my !vote if references are forthcoming, but I don't see this as very likely since the movement doesn't exist outside of Moffat's promotional material and associated webrings. By the way I don't think the article is simply promoting Moffat, there's Stephanie Lynn Evans as well, although even her website just describes her work as gothic, which is merely an adjective, not an identification with an art movement. And then there's Floria Sigismondi, but I can't find any evidence that she is part of this so-called art movement.--Ethicoaestheticist 23:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. - Modernist 05:12, 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 keep. W.marsh 15:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USS Watseka (YT-387)[edit]

USS Watseka (YT-387) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unremarkable Navy tugboat, biggest claim to fame is that it's one of the Naval vessels named for a woman (a Native American woman that is). Lars T. 17:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly would they be? Unless they say anything but "Was build, tugged some Navy ships, then was sold for scrap", dump them all into a list without links. Lars T. 01:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not useful precedents. One is a destroyer (a major warship). One is a patrol boat, but one which at least saw action. In the third, the AfD was very brief with comments like 'started by a troll'. The present case is a minor naval vessel which seems to have spent its career shunting ships around harbour. The Land 14:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are two implicit precedents here: #1 there have been only 3 AfDs of any commissioned ships and #2 there are a ton of other Navy tug articles that have been around unmolested for a long time and edited by a number of editors. --A. B. (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Commissioned naval vessels are inherently notable. TomTheHand 14:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TomTheHand et al Benea 14:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TomTheHand. Commissioned ship in any Navy is notable. Jinian 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Serving as a commissioned ship in any major world navy is notable for any vessel. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - after this AfD, regardless of the outcome, if you think we should reexamine the notability of really little ships like tugs (which I think is a fair question), then I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Maritime warfare task force‎ for discussion and consensus as to how to handle them (there may be certain classes to keep and others to just put into a list for instance based on tonnage) Then they could all be treated the same in a systematic way. FWIW, I'm not sure the U.S. Navy still considers its tugs as commissioned vessels except perhaps the big ocean-going tugs (which may have all been transferred to [[United States Naval Ship|USNS status). I certainly think notability is a legitimate question however I continue to think this article should be kept pending a broader discussion (outside the AfD process) of all small auxiliaries. --A. B. (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very sensible. I have a book with information on every ship which served in the Imperial Japanese Navy, down to the last patrol boat and 'miscellaneous craft': I think it would be sensible to talk about it before unleashing every single one on its own article. The Land 19:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It makes Wikipedia more useful if there are articles about all naval vessels.--Toddy1 04:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is something significant about her. Trekphiler 08:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability thresholds for military units have occasionally been a vexed issued on the Military History Wikiproject, but the convention is that all ships commissioned into a national navy are automatically notable. While discussing this again wouldn't hurt, I'd lean towards maintaining this convention in line with Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. This is clearly an excellent test case for the notability threshold as the only reason the tug is notable is because it was commissioned. -- Nick Dowling 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What it comes down to then: Is this a commissioned ship or is it a commissioned boat? And are commissioned boats also automatically notable? Lars T. 18:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you defining "boat"? Many would call the watercraft on the left in this picture a "boat" and the one on the right a "tug". --A. B. (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 15:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is advertising and cannot possibly be attributed to a reliable source. Ich checked The Occult Roots of Nazism on this, and there nothing about a chair by Wiligut. The original creator of this article seems to have quit Wikipedia. Zara1709 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and merge with Nazi mysticism or Runic_alphabet#Occultism_and_Nazi_Germany. --Strothra 16:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is already included with one sentence in that article. There was no more content. Zara1709 16:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you should have completed the merge by redirecting rather than put the article up for AfD. --Strothra 16:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Usually yes, but in this case I would like to make sure. The reason for the deletion is not failing wp:notability, but advertising and lack of reliable sources. I was under the impression, that this could make a difference. Zara1709 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, I mean it's not a big deal. In this case, however, I think that WP:BOLD would have been applicable and a simple redirect done. Nothing about the chair seems to be significantly within WP:NN as it's a relatively unknown artifact thus lacking independent sources and any ability to prove notability. --Strothra 16:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FOR SALE: A great chair. Collector's item! "Price on request" http://www.germaniainternational.com/himmlerchair.html Mandsford 01:22, 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. Any "merge" of material to The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references would be giving undue weight to Wikipedia on The Report - the section in the main article is plentifully sufficient. If someone really badly wants to put one or two sentences in that article from this deleted one, ask me on my talk page and I'll give you the appropriate fragments. Daniel 04:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and redirect to The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references for existing links. Daniel 04:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on The Colbert Report[edit]

Wikipedia on The Colbert Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm well aware that this deletion nomination is likely doomed to a snowball close given how popular The Colbert Report is among Wikipedia editors, but I think it should be deleted and merged into The Colbert Report. This seems like an example of Wikipedia giving undue weight to mention of itself; while I understand the instinct, self-promotion in terms of article focus is not something we should strive for. While the subject of Wikipedia has certainly come up several times on his show, it doesn't seem to have been mentioned any more often than bears, global warming as real due to the success of An Inconvenient Truth, the Megyeri Bridge, the number of times he mentioned his broken wrist, etc., etc. Like all of those examples, his occasional references to Wikipedia are part of a running gag, and nothing more. It doesn't merit special attention, even though (like most of his major bits with cultural impact) the fallout of vandalism received some news coverage.

I'm not opposed to the inclusion of this content in principle; I just think it would make for a better balance of coverage if it were relegated to its current subsection at The Colbert Report. Dylan 16:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep'" This entry is factual, well-researched, and funny as hell. Also, according to Wikipedia's own goal of presenting a global perspective, I find this entry particularly relevant, as I don't have access to the Colbert show here in Taiwan. It's a good thing that I read it when I did, cuz it might be gone tomorrow. Wikipedians who suggested that Colbert did more to promote Wikipedia than he denigrated this venerable institution are right. IMHO, so-called "criticism" of Wikipedia should be given free time here. And, apparently, if Colbert wanted, he could drum up plenty of support for a potential "bears on Colbert" entry. Haha. --Torchpratt 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not entirely sure whether or not it should be merged into the main article, or have some other article created to merge into with other stuff... I guess merge is best. Maybe we should have a mergeto tag instead then. mattbuck 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Well, I propose merging as a way of signaling that the content itself is not at odds with deletion policy, just its placement and breadth; The Colbert Report#Wikipedia references already has a pretty good summary of this article's contents, so a literal merge isn't really necessary. What I mean is: Let's save what merits saving from this article, stick at The Colbert Report, and then delete the extraneous detail. Dylan 17:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete I see no reason why this should have its own article just because it refers to Wikipedia. Dougie WII 18:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete per Dougie WII - insufficient content based on independent sources to justify a separate article. Addhoc 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply delete This information is useful if you're researching this TV show for some reason, but otherwise it's just rehashing of the aired material. There were a large number of articles before on Colbert Report joke words, as well as one big summary article compendium of Colbert jokes. Although there's nothing particularly harmful about having factual, easily verifiable info on WP, this kind of regurgitation or "fan-nonfiction" pretty clearly falls into WP:NOT. Not to mention the obvious conflict of interest and WP:OR. This article has had time to mature, and it's ended up as just masturbation. When someone besides Colbert writes a book about the relationship between Colbert and Wikipedia, then we can have this article. But that book would probably rather focus on the way that pure vanity, which is what defines Colbert's comic character, tends to draw fawning admiration from those with inferiority complexes and/or too much time on their hands. Potatoswatter 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify that last sentence, Colbert is a parody of a characters like Bill O'Reilly, and if you respect him in the same sense as Bill O'Reilly and the conservative community, then you're only part of the parody. Not that there's anything wrong with that... I'm not gonna deny human nature... but this article is also part of the same grand satire and shouldn't be taken seriously. I guess to tie it to one rule it would be WP:POV. You don't "get" this article unless you're inside the joke. Potatoswatter 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere 132.205.99.122 20:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete — it's simply not notable as a subject. All of the sources discuss tangentially related things, which already have articles. It's not really a synthesis, but it's definitely cobbling together loosely related things to try and form an article — when they would be better treated as part of a cogent overview in, say, Stephen Colbert. --Haemo 20:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Potatoswatter. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for this. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stephen Colbert, arguably, has done more to make people aware of Wikipedia than any other human being, taking the service's reputation from nerdy to hip by making it an object of satire. I suppose this could be merged into an article about The Colbert Report or about Wikipedia in general. However, when one looks back years from now to see why Wikipedia's popularity rocketed in 2007, Colbert will be one of the reasons cited. Wikimedia Foundation will break records for the amount of donations this autumn, and it's due in large part to the "advertrising" done on The Colbert Report. Mandsford 01:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now articles are kept based on their subjects' influence on Wikipedia? Do you have any reliable sources to back up your assertion that Colbert has had such an influence on Wikipedia's popularity or fundraising? Dylan 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, being made fun of automatically makes me less nerdy? Didn't realize that. I should ask for money more often…
  • Actually WP is a very popular American phenomenon, and I've seen it mentioned on news besides CR. Perhaps not as much, but then CR more often directly discusses vanity, which happens to have a cultural connection to WP. I don't see what Colbert can do that various scandals on defamation or fraud, which make the real evening news with a broader audience, don't. Maybe Colbert happens to be your main TV news? Colbert talks about pop culture, and if WP wasn't pop culture it wouldn't get mentioned. If you have a reference, prove me wrong. Potatoswatter 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being made fun of doesn't make you less nerdy; how you respond to being made fun of determines that. (And yes, it did take me awhile to think of that as a comeback. I'm slow.) Mandsford 14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if that weren't ludicrous hyperbole (which I think it is), that would be an argument for mentioning Colbert on the Wikipedia article. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me this is more an article about criticism and satirization of a very notable subject, Wikipedia, than it is an offshoot of articles about Colbert. Wikipedia criticism is a valid subject, even when its masked in humor, but especially when the satirist is a very notable subject (Colbert Report). The article handles the subject well, not excessive, and self aware that the article it self becomes part of the joke (to say nothing of this deletion debate). Deletion will make us Wikipedians look like dilettantes (as if that label hadn't been applied before), but certainly makes the satire just a bit more spot on. Wag of the finger to the nomination. Jacksinterweb 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it can be merged, but who passes personal judgment on a collective like WP? Potatoswatter 05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this Wikipediacruft as unencyclopedic and not notable.Noroton 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) No, on second thought it is notable.[reply]
Keep this Wikipediacruft! Noroton 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge or whatever - please, this is an encyclopedia. I beg to see encyclopedic merit in an article that shows how a computer website has been mentioned on a TV show. Now, a mentioning of this topic in an article may be merited, but this being on its own article? MessedRocker (talk) (write this article) 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments on the talk page. To reiterate, we shouldn't have articles about how every person/organisation/online encyclopaedia is presented on The Colbert Report. Even if for some reason we decided to have an article Bears on The Colbert Report (which would be plainly ridiculous) that would be more justified seeing as he mentions them a hell of a lot more than he does Wikipedia. If the article is to be believed, Colbert has mentioned Wikipedia about 5 or 6 times on his show... No need to merge, information is already in main article. Hammer Raccoon 14:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further clarify my point, Wikipedia's satirising on The Colbert Report is no more deserving of an article than any of his other favoured topics, including bears, Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq, gay people etcetera etcetera - none of which deserve entire articles devoted to their presentation on a single TV show. Hammer Raccoon 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RMHED 15:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The population of Colbert self-reference has tripled in the last decade. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 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. --Tikiwont 10:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperPage[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEB. What news there is, seems to be mainly trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Hu12 16:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The previous AfD closed as Keep, but required that the article be referenced. The references added, though they do improve the article, are not sufficient to address the concerns of the previous AfD or the dictates of WP:WEB. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references don't even refer to the site. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to skyscrapers. Rates a mention and a link for anyone interested in skyscrapers, but not really an article of its own. Mandsford 01:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per my nom. --Hu12 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It certainly should be a link on Skyscraper (and is), but I see no need for it to have its own article. Acroterion (talk) 19:52, 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. W.marsh 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music Video Codes[edit]

Music Video Codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A few things wrong here. Firstly, it isn't clear about this subject's notability. At first glance, it has plenty of references, but these all seem to relate to Myspace, or contradict what is written in the article. The page is more about music videos in Myspace, Myspace, or the supposed popularity of these codes - I quote from the last section - "At its peak, the term was searched over 500,000 times in a given month, providing us an insight into one of the Internets great phenomenon". This isn't backed up as a fact, and the alexa.com link here contradicts the "MusicVideoCodes.com is also a top 6,000 English website " statement in the article. Montchav 19:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Topic is of minor notability, this article is largely spam for one website. I think that "music video codes" are a key part of the social networking phenomenon, especially so on MySpace which was the first site to allow this customization. But the article would need better sources and substantial rewriting. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep May be in need of a review of the sources/references but the spread of music video codecs is definitely a major part of the social networking phenomenon, and if this is a major source of these codecs (as the article claims), than it is probably notable. Random89 08:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete this is spam. This is marketing for a website Doc Strange 16:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't even seem to be an active site at MusicVideoCodes.com. Dougie WII 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc Strange. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. per Random89 BeanoJosh 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Random89, because it's a part of the music sharing phenomenonMandsford 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also agree with Doc Strange. --Stormbay 01:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elysia[edit]

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

a collection of facts with no actual sources to establish a connection. this is basically a trivia page and a violation of WP:OR to try to imply they are connected as a concept. Law/Disorder 03:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note there is no AfD tag on the article, you may wish to do so, otherwise this will be closed as out of process. As for the article, redirect it to Elysium, and if there's any sources discussing the phenomenon of using Elysia, we can add a line or to on that article. i (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh, woops, ok then. Law/Disorder 05:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be some borderline OR trying to connect a bunch of non-notable topics which don't belong on Wikipedia in the first place. Doctorfluffy 03:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a bunch of unrelated fictional references to Elysian Fields. -- Dougie WII 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT, WP:NOR, etc. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Elysium: Interesting, but the various uses don't seem to connect to each other, so it seems to violate WP:NOR. This could be a worthy paragraph in Elysium since that does seem to be where the name comes from, but it would have to be compressed into a paragraph because it isn't important to that subject. Noroton 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) minor edit Noroton 03:08, 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 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Lindberg[edit]

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

A member of a notable gaming clan. Cannot find any reliable sources on him, looks like the page was also made by him. So delete.Snakese 23:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability. Likely vanity article. Decoratrix 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable person, should be speedied. -- Dougie WII 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not speedy as the winning of $30k would be an assertion of notability. On the other hand, the article is devoid of references and I really don't see this meeting WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle City RM2k[edit]

Battle City RM2k (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable game made with a free RPG Maker 2000 program. Cannot find any sources. so delete. Snakese 23:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Snakese. Stifle (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously non-notable unpublished game. shoeofdeath 06:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Pagrashtak 18:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Carcharoth 15:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David H. Kelley[edit]

David H. Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced stub article on a Canadian archaeologist and genalogist. No independent evidence of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think that being a Professor Emeritus (which is easily verifiable[18]) he is quite obviously notable. References are included as links to papers written by him (his bibliography includes papers published in American Antiquity, Current Anthropology, American Anthropologist and many other top of the line journals, through 4 decades). And the notability of his contributions to mesoamericanist studies are outlined - althpugh grantedly not prefixed with the phrase "He is notable because ...". I think this AfD is nealy baseless.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Deor 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar and Google books searches show multiple significant publications in journals and books. Seems to have been a quite important scholar in the field of Mayan language in his day. Deor 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Big guy in Mayan studies. Specifically, in deciphering the Mayan script which was a great mystery until the mid-late 20th century. I don't know about his later genealogical efforts but he's one of the major Mayan script scholars. --lquilter 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Sppedy Keep Good grief. We have countless articles on marginally notable comic book characters and low selling music albums, but someone goes on a witch-hunt against a true scholar who is quite notable. Please save AfD for the garbage subjects, of which there are plenty. Decoratrix 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from independent reliable sources are provided to omply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to provide citations here and now in an AFD. The article describes his reasons for notability already. Per WP:ATD, tagging an article or sources {{verify}} is preferred ("If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. ... {{verify}}"). --lquilter 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to be clearly regarded as an expert on Maya writing. Along with the Google scholar results mentioned already, his book "Deciphering the Maya Script" has attracted multiple reviews from J. Latin American Studies, Hispanic American Historical Review, and Latin American Research Review. —David Eppstein 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Brittanica thinks he's notable enough to cite, though I had to use the Google cache as the link doesn't exist any more. Corvus cornix 23:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as others have noted Kelley was one of the earliest and pre-eminent promoters of the (ultimately successful) phonetic approach to Maya script decipherment, and the significance of his contribs in this regard are documented at some length in leading works on the subject, such as by George Stuart and particularly in Coe's Breaking the Maya Code. His glyph readings (such as identifying the name of K'ak'upakal in Chichen Itza's inscriptions) were among the first to be validated and helped 'turn the tide', so to speak. Even discounting his influence on Maya epigraphy, his academic career spanning about half a century would likely be notable in its own right. His speculative investigations into diffusionist contact theories are likewise notably commented upon in secondary publications, despite (or even, because of) their unconventional approach and the annoyance among other academics they caused at the time. It was perhaps remiss not to have set out the refs and notability claims more explicitly before now; have begun to add the appropriate and verifiable refs and over the next couple of days will look to work them into an expanded text, which hopefully will make his notability claim that much clearer. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:55, 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. W.marsh 15:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heartless[edit]

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

I believe a page like this has been deleted before but I can't remember the exact name. Anyway, this is a list of non-notable video game monsters, not unlike the much-maligned (and repeatedly deleted) lists of video game weapons/cars/planes/collectible cards/goodies/etc. Thus, it fails the inclusion criteria for this encyclopedia. Axem Titanium 15:42, 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. Hut 8.5 07:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-Port[edit]

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

Non-notable cellular phone feature. This proprietary connector design belongs in a developer manual, not in a general-audience encyclopedia. While there may have been many instances of this connector shipped, its mass production doesn't make it notable. Listing at AfD after {{prod}} removed by User:200.42.72.146 without comment. Mikeblas 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, quite relevant and notable, although several dozen articles on phones should be deleted. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This series of ports for Nokia may not have lasted long, but was a notable and widely-used series. BeanoJosh 21:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was used in many Nokia phones.--Cartman005 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It presents a useful explanation of the connector in its historical context. It is unlikely that the this information would be readily accessible elsewhere. --Sergeirichard 18:33, 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 Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus. References added, notability established. RMHED 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denys Spittle[edit]

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

Assertions of notability, but no evidence supplied Mayalld 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this entry on Denys Spittle since is an important figure in architecture (RCHM) and collecting important works of art eg illuminated manuscripts which have recently been exhibited at Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge. Currently there is little web presence for this person so I thought It important to do a biog of him so his contribution to archeology, art history etc is saved for future researchers. If this is not correct for wikipedia then please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkdale (talk • contribs) 15:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I moved the above comment from the creator from the article's talk page. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep co-author of some academic-looking books, and although Google only shows one news article, it is the New York Times and does appear to assert notability. Given this fellow's period of activity, though, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are more news sources that simply aren't online. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page creator described him as important but unknown Mayalld 17:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete Borderline notability shown Mayalld 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep Sufficient notability now established Mayalld 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. I have done some cleanup, which makes article read quite a bit better. Still needs work. Decoratrix 18:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for your interest. This is a work in progress, perhaps I should have written an article offline first, but I am new to WP so...
    This is why I want to keep this entry and continue working on it...From the top of my head: Denys Spittle was educated at Cambridge Uni, wounded in action in WW2 and was left on a greek island to recover, his colleagues forgot about him and he spent the rest of the war wandering around said island with his notepad drawing broken Corinthian columns. This was to become an important archaeological find, once he was picked up from the island at the conclusion of the war. He authored 5 + volumes of Samothrace. He is an expert in manuscripts and his vast collection was displayed at Fitzwillie Cambridge. He was head honcho at Cambridge office of RCHM. He had many valuable works of art that he collected. He was awarded the OBE. He was FSA since 1956.
    My entry was put on speed delete by Mayalld, he bases his conclusion on my reporting that Spittle was unknown. What I meant to say was that he is virtually unknown now, and online he has virtually no presence, his books are out of print and so on. I have no vested interest in championing Spittle other than I thought his input into architectural history and archeology should be noted for future reseachers in architecture/art history/archaeology. Thanks to Iain99 for showing me how to enter onto this discussion.Kirkdale 19:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
consider tagging new articles "underconstruction" (in double curly brackets, not quotes), to discourage over-zealous editors from deleting uncompleted articles. Peterkingiron 19:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to say that I have no particular vested interest in getting the article deleted. I'd have done just the same for any article that failed to show apparent notability, on the basis that if we don't adopt a rather tough line on non-notable bios, then they will multiply. As the article has improved somewhat, I'm moving to a more neutral position. If it improves further, I'll move again Mayalld 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks notable enough and now plenty of references have been added. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough information to show that he is notable. That's enough to justify a keep--this is not a vote on article quality.DGG (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly enough information about notability. Tag with a needs verifiable sources to generate more research as needed. This sort of article appears to address a systemic bias in wikipedia towards post-Internet-era work. --Lquilter 18:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looks moderately notable to me. I also note that page is marked "under construction" (though not tagged as such). It is most discouraging to new editors to have their article deleted before they have had a chance to complete writing it. Peterkingiron 19:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources now, looks reasonably notable. I must echo Peter's comments - if an article is work in progress then unless it's obviously nonsense or vandalism tagging it for deletion before the author's had a reasonable chance to finish it is a bad idea, and needlessly bitey. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 13:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't intend to be too fierce with a new user, so apologies if I was. Glad to see that the end result is that the article has been rapidy improved to a good standard. Mayalld 16:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sipahh[edit]

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

Advertisement with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Shouldn't it be speedy for advertising? -- Mikeblas 15:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should be more informative, how it works what it is, it does seem more like an ad at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdaloz (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About 70 Google News hits. Some of the articles are just brief mentions, but there are articles about a lawsuit against Nestle [19] and the straw's manufacturer winning a Food Industry Innovation Award [20]. This says more than 14 million straws have been sold. There are also articles in other languages. I'll add some sources to the article. Bláthnaid 19:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with the verifiability policy and fully establish notability. Stifle (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about a notable product. I see no reason to delete it other than it may be perceived as an advertisement. With some minor adjustments it could be written like an article. Wikipedia and the world aren't about moving backwards and getting rid of things that aren't quite right, we should be moving forward and if you feel strongly enough about an article to put it up for AfD when it is about a notable product, why can't you try and fix it up a little? I know that I will try. Charlie.somerville 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable product which is now distributed alongside milk at McDonald's restaurants. Should never have even been considered for deletion in the first place.Curlingpro47 23:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete; the keep votes are largely subjective. east.718 at 04:15, 11/15/2007

Nokia 6810[edit]

Nokia 6810 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product; just another cell phone which was replaced by a different and better model a few months later. The article doesn't establish notability, and has no references. I don't expect that substantial references are widely available -- just self-published reviews and user blogs. Listing after {{prod}} removed with weak assertions of notability on the talk page. Mikeblas 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too many articles about phones. Stifle (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Although the phone wasn't out for too long and wasn't a big model, I think it is still a notable product. BeanoJosh 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete phone with no claim of notabilty This is a Secret account 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list of Nokia phones is nearly complete so it would be a shame to start deleting them now. Though moving all the 68** phones to one article would be better Towel401 14:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my arguments in the below Nokia thread and [21]. Sufficient sources seem to exist. --W.marsh 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm looking at your news.google link, W.Marsh, and I can't see why it is a reason to vote "keep". In fact, it demonostrates what I point out in my nomination -- that there aren't substantial references for this product, and therefore it fails notability. None of the 10 links on the first page your search produces are substantial or usable, in fact. There's simple PR regurgitation, mostly. Per Search Engine Optimization, many of the hits don't even go to content relvant to this phone. Here's a summary of the top ten links:
  1. InfoSyncWorld: 350-word capsule review. This is not "substantial" per WP:V.
  2. ImageGallery link that goes to the same above capsule review.
  3. "Nokia Extends..." goes to TOC content that is not 6810-specific.
  4. "Nokia pushes design" goes to a page that lists a for-purchase Gartner Group report. Dunno what it says about this phone, but it can't be used as a reference because Wikipedia wants accessible references
  5. "Partners with i.game": A $5 report. It's from PR Newswire, so it's just a press release; it's only 1445 words long.
  6. Think equity: Another pay article; $88 for a 12 page piece which is about RIM, and probably only mentions this phone in passing.
  7. Not English-language link
  8. Not English-language link (Spanish? Portuguese?)
  9. Not English-language link
  10. Not English-language link (Japanese)
Am I not seeing the same material you linked to? Or am I misunderstanding your point? -- Mikeblas 17:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as failing WP:N. Phones have no free pass from the notability requirement. The fact that it exists and is sold is not enough. There are no secondary sources cited to demonstrate that this phone has anything to mark it out from all other phones. TerriersFan 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete iphone: yes, non-notable random phone: no Mbisanz 02:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Armani Flagship Store in Hong Kong[edit]

The result was speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft as "Spam, copyright violation". -- KTC 16:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armani Flagship Store in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Likely advertising: article started by user with same name as architects. No assertion of especial notability. Armani certainly notable, but not every one of their outlets. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Rings of advertising, and I don't see it as notable or encyclopedic. It's just another store for a chain. Does every Denny's deserve its own article? -- Mikeblas 15:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also listed it as part of this AfD request: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/U-BORA_Towers
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 21:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6233[edit]

Nokia 6233 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These products don't meet WP:PRODUCT. The article is a list of specifications which are completely un-cited, and reads like an advertisement or marketing brochure. The article is unlikely to be repaired as substantial references don't exist for such products. Listing after {{prod}} was removed without comment. Mikeblas 15:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a Nokia directory. Stifle (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources exist [22] we can have an okay article here. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia... we can cover stuff like this. I'm not interested in it, but some people are. Why not provide them neutral, accurate information? Mikeblas and I have had this out before and it's probably an "intelligent people may disagree" situation, can we leave it at that? --W.marsh 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an analysis of the first ten links at the Google News page you've linked to, w.marsh. Just like the other phone AfD where you posted another link, these seem more like an argument against the article than one for it:
  1. techtree.com, a 1200 word review of the phone. Not substantial coverage.
  2. infosync.com, a 350-word review of the phone written before it was released.
  3. infosync.com again, this time after its release. 390 words, which is just a capsule review that's not a substantial reference.
  4. infosync.com again, a 150-word announcement, not a substantial reference.
  5. strategy.com, this link is 404.
  6. For-sale document from pqarchiver.com of the PR Newswire press release. Not usable as a reference.
  7. Same thing as previous link, at highbeam.com, another PR republisher.
  8. Same thing as previous link at noticias.info, another PR republisher.
  9. lexisnexis.com charges $3 to view the whole press release about stores in India now delivering the phone. Can't use subscription sites as references.
  10. It's the PR Newswire piece again, now at AccessMyLibrary.com.
Again, the point of the AfD is that no substantial and appropriate secondary sources are available. The product receives coverage consisting of millhouse capsule reviews and "repeated" press release announcements. A notable product would have substantial coverage from third parties. -- Mikeblas 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1200 word reviews are a good thing. Try to find that much information in prose on the average town or river we have an article on. The point is that we can provide some decent information here, and this is a topic some people are going to want an encyclopedic article on. No one's going to come here looking for information on this topic and say "Whew, I'm glad they didn't give me an article at all, no one's written a book about this phone!" People want as much information as we can give them... in this case we can give them some neutral, encyclopedic info. Maybe we can't write a FA, but it's still going to be denying decent NPOV information to a lot of people to delete these article. No one comes here to marvel in all the articles we don't have. If we have encyclopedic information on their phone, great. If we have a redlink, we're less useful for a very poor reason. --W.marsh 13:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, along with any similar ones. Could also be merged into a single article on Nokia cell phone models, but very few cell phone models warrant individual articles. Collectonian 08:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i've found this page and many other like it useful. wikipedia i thought was meant to be all inclusive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.18 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does indeed meet WP:PRODUCT. The Nokia page is too large to incorporate it within itself and needs seperate pages for its products. It is a notable product. --69.107.99.46 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as failing WP:N. Phones have no free pass from the notability requirement. The fact that it exists and is sold is not enough. There are no secondary sources cited to demonstrate that this phone has anything to mark it out from all other phones. The sources in the Gsearch are advertorial in nature rather than objective, critical reviews. TerriersFan 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Considering W.marsh's I believe that this article can satisfy WP:V. I also believe that with the topic being so broad, the information could not be merged into another article as suggested by WP:PRODUCT. As such, I feel that the article should remain. SorryGuy 05:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See nothing notable about this particular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia product directory. --Fang Aili talk 16:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, it would be a bad thing if Wikipedia became a directory of products. This is a very specific Nokia phone model just like dozens of others. This doesn't deserve its own page; there is no indication that it is especially important. Coverage of this topic should be in a general place like List of Nokia products or, perhaps more specifically, Nokia 6000 series. Mangojuicetalk 20:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jarlaxle[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. This unreferenced article is written completely in-universe, and I don't believe secondary sources are available for this character -- demonstrating its failure to meet WP:N. Listing at AfD after {{prod}} was removed with the comment "remove prod" and no other discussion or changes to article. Mikeblas 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, is a significant character in the novels Homeland, Exile, Sojourn, The Legacy, Starless Night, and Siege of Darkness, by R. A. Salvatore.

Sources do need to be added, however - --Geck0 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Jarlaxle is also mentioned in Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of the Drow and additionally, he also appears in the TSR Villain's Lorebook (TSR 9552, July 1998) on page 37, for AD&D 2nd Edition rules and I believe also in 3.0 and 3.5 Edition WotC sourcebooks also. --Geck0 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These are both from WoTC or TSR, and therefore primary sources. -- Mikeblas 16:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He also appears in the PC game Baldur's Gate 2, by Black Isle Studios, as an NPC. This is not a WoTC or TSR source and neither is it a Primary source. He also appears in the Devil's Due Publishing Comics. Surely in this case, primary sources are more important than secondary ones? What about other similar articles, like the one on Artemis Entreri? I notice that also the Bregan D'aerthe page is also under the knife. --Geck0 18:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information beyond plot and game guide material is required to justify a stand alone article. Jay32183 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand the dilemma here, but this also means the articles on the Do'Urden and Baenre families, as well pretty well all Forgotten Realms (and Dragonlance, et al.) articles should be deleted, because secondary sources are hard to obtain. Is this the stance Wikipedia wishes to take? --Geck0 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, at least according to WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. WP:N requires that topics have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic to get articles. Jay32183 21:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per BOZ. Lack of sources is reason for improvement, not deletion. Edward321 06:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course a lack of sources is a reason to delete. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, which says so. -- Mikeblas 06:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it doesn't. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:PROVEIT) This does NOT mean a poorly written and sourced article is reason to delete. That an article needs improvement is not grounds for deletion. --Anon 121.209.160.15 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not confuse the issue. I don't think there's anything in this article that's in dispute, or unverifiable. If there's an issue, it's with the character's notability, not the verifiability of the information presented. Powers T 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I agree with the first issue here, but I do feel he is a notable character, but due to a lack of secondary and tertiary sources on almost all Forgotten Realms (and other WotC game settings) Wiki articles, it is nigh on impossible to prove this. As I said in another comment, if verifiability is the issue here, then virtually all TSR- and WotC-related articles should be deleted. The only ones left would be on Drizzt Do'Urden and perhaps Liriel Baenre, which is unfair, in my opinion. --Geck0 21:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per WP:PROVEIT, article is subject to deletion where no verifiable sources can be found. This is not the case here. Nowhere in WP:V does it say that an article should be deleted because it is not up to Wikipedia standards in terms of proper sourcing and citation. --Anon 121.209.160.15 03:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. PROVEIT says "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This article has no third-party sources. -- Mikeblas 09:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT by a mile with its heavily in universe perspective. Worse still, there are no footnotes to verify the primary sources have been cited, and the there are no reliable sources to evidence notability outside of the game from which this stock character was created for. This article looks like someone spent a long time working on it, but its shallow disregard for WP guidelines suggests it is a copy and paste from a fansite. --Gavin Collins 14:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The footnotes can be added, if someone can find the time to do so. I don't have all the source books to hand, but I shall try and footnote as much as possible, with the sources I do obtain. I also do not believe the article to be a cut and paste job entirely (some of it could be). The character is well established in not only novels by R.A. Salvatore, but in the lore of Forgotten Realms (in their source books, written by many different authors). All that needs to be done is a re-write, with footnotes. This is not a delete job. It needs editing, that is all. Is anyone willing to add further sources, linking them to footnotes, as well as changing the in-universe perspective? --Geck0 16:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character that plays a fairly major part in most of the series. The lack of verifiable sources shouldn't be a major consideration as this is a fictional character in a larger series - many characters don't have sources. In addition, the in-universe perspective could be fixed with a little effort. --220.52.64.59 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note. A lack of verifiable third-party sources means the subject of the article is not notable, per WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Mikeblas 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Edward321. Rray 16:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - add additional sources to improve the article, cite them in text. Wikipedia is not on the deletionists timetable. Web Warlock 16:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Bregan D'aerthe. I don't see that we need an article for the leader/founder of the group, but for the group itself which makes strong claims to notability within the setting (outside, not so much... room for improvement, I'd say). -Harmil 18:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Except Jarlaxle is no longer the leader of Bregan D'aerthe and is currently adventuring with the rogue assassin Artemis Entreri. Bregan D'aerthe is currently being lead by the drow psionicist Kimmuriel Oblodra. Jarlaxle did form Bregan D'aerthe though. Since his departure, we don't hear as much from Bregan D'aerthe as before, but that doesn't mean they're not a notable band, but due to the nature of Forgotten Realms novels and realmslore, we may not know of their current actions, or how powerful they are. The Zhentarim are far more important, in my opinion. I would say merge his article with that of the Baenre family, but his attachment to that drow family is a spoiler, so I would advise against that as well. Geck0 20:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major character in one series as well as minor character in several others.--Neverpitch 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as non-notable biography. Existing references are trivial at best. PeaceNT 13:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen Lambert[edit]

David Allen Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable genalogist, fails WP:BIO. The article includes four references: the first are to sources which are clearly not idependent of the subject, and the next two are simply to listings of his books on the websites of online booksellers. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 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 Redirect to Capistrano Unified School District. Hut 8.5 07:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorecliffs Middle School[edit]

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

This is a page about an unremarkable school. No assertion of notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:10, 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: Speedily deleted all contributions by users User:Aedas and/or User:Redbean1027 as blatant self-promotion and possible copyright violation (articles may not be actually GFDL-licensed), with the exception of articles that had existed before the users' edits (Prince's Building, Pentominium, The Marina Bay Sands, Ocean Heights (Dubai), West Kowloon Cultural District); they were reverted to the previous versions. - Mike Rosoft 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-BORA Towers[edit]

U-BORA Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Clear advertising for a commercial real estate project under construction. Notability not asserted. I tried to db-spam it but someone keeps deleting the tag. Dougie WII 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty obvious advertising / promotion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be an ad, but either way it doesn't appear to be a notable project.Alberon 15:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteBlatant advertising, the images look swiped from somewhere as well Гedʃtǁcɭ 15:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all associated articles. Some of these buildings may very well be notable, but the case for this is not made. Clear COI violation on all articles. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear case of advertising spam Mayalld 15:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 15:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also advertising for building projects by same firm. Appears to be made by same user under different name after original name was blocked.

Dancing_Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armani_Flagship_Store_in_Hong_Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince's_Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boulevard_Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Dougie WII 15:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some more:

MTR_Tung_Chung_Cable_Car_Terminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Terminal_2_of_Hong_Kong_International_Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evangel_College_Hong_Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
HKIEd_Jockey_Club_Primary_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dillard_University_–_DUICEF_Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Dougie WII 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Spam. Delete, candidates for speedy deletion. Marking as such. - Mike Rosoft 15:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, I have made a simple Google search, and the article U-BORA Towers indeed comes from the www.aedas.com website. - Mike Rosoft 16:07, 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. W.marsh 14:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ChhagolNayanaHarini[edit]

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

Previously PRODed. Now Transwikied. No evidence that this is a notable term in it's original language as opposed to a foreign language Neoglism of some sort. TexasAndroid 14:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. More likely a hoax than either of the above. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like somebody's name that an admirer is using. I hope Wiktionary deletes it. Corvus cornix 23:10, 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. W.marsh 14:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-football[edit]

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

Neoglism TexasAndroid 14:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite. As it stands, the article is just a coatrack to attack the Glasgow Rangers. But the term is quite common, and is certainly not a neologism. AecisBrievenbus 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The phrase is very new is now apparently not new and has been used by reliable, third-party published sources, including BBC and The Herald (Glasgow). -- Satori Son 15:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since it's already been copied to Wiktionary, and it's just a defamatory term for a style of football some people don't like. If you must, a single sentence in the main football article would suffice. - fchd 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rewrite, This article as it stands is just a coatrack for criticism of Rangers. The club most closely associated with the phrase are Barcelona, who have used it, or similar criticisms of any defensively organised opponents they fail to score against for many years. The phrase is not a neologism at least not brand new, it is used here Google book search from a book published in 2001 about the 1968 Intercontinental Cup, and here it was used by Johan Cruyff in 2002 to criticise Brazil after they won that years World Cup Nacion.com. The Spanish original translation of the phrase (anti-futbol) is commonly occurring. The article should be rewritten so that it doesn't simply read as an incredibly recentist attack on Rangers. King of the NorthEast 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a phrase used as criticism, not a specific tactic that can be described. I've tried to make the article more neutral but it looks like it was created as a coatrack. A dictionary definition would be enough. Snigbrook 18:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely this is anti-Rangers not anti-football. Peanut4 20:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm starting to change my opinion. This is starting to be better sourced. Still not sure how relevant a term it is or just a buzz word by a couple of bitter footballers. Peanut4 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK, without prejudice to a proper researched article being created on the subject. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per snigroot. BeanoJosh 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI have added a little historical perspective, the phrase has only recently been used as anti Rangers, it has historically been used in England (anti-Argentine), Spain (anti Italian) and Argentina (anti Brazilian). I hope you will reconsider your calls for deletion now that I have removed the seething anti-Rangers bias. King of the NorthEast 21:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Original submitter changing my opinion. The re-written version is no longer an attack article, and is now fairly well sourced. - TexasAndroid 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obvious improvements have been made since this was nominated. The term has been in use in the sports media for several years and I think it's gone beyond a neologism and is a notable term. An eye may need to be kept on it to avoid any further vandalism but the term, when discussed from NPOV is worthy of an article. Tx17777 22:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per King of the NE. Sebisthlm 01:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as it stands per my timestamp, it is a widely-used term, with many well-researched sources. Again, as at this timestamp, there is no more criticism of Rangers than there is of either Chelsea or Real Madrid, for instance. No longer a coatrack. Ref (chew)(do) 02:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite regardless of the longevity of the phrase, the article is almost entirely about the use of the phrase, and not about the concept. As such it is purely lexicographical, and not encyclopaedic. If someone wants to write an article about the tactics and motivations of defensive play, or anti-football, there might be something that merits a place in an encyclopaedia, but this is not encyclopaedic, it's about usage of a translated phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin McE (talk • contribs) 11:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The progress on this since the AfD has been immense. Keep it, then have it as the improvement drive article of the week in WP:Football. Da-rb 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism about something which cannot be clearly and unambiguously defined. --Angelo 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shelli Yoder[edit]

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

This went up for prod, but I wasn't sure if the winner of a state pageant was notable or not. Brought it here for discussion. Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 14:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As the PROD initiator, I vote for deletion on the grounds of non-notability. By the way: Is it appropriate for an editor, following the expiration of a PROD (which fact User:Esprit15d fails to mention), change the rules and create an AfD? The entire Wikipedia community had five days to remove the PROD and prove the article is notable. No one did. I do not appreciate User:Esprit15d's unprofessional and capricious actions. Maplewooddrive 16:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My actions aren't even remotely out of harmony with policy. To avoid future misinformed tirades, you need to familiarize yourself with the policy here (especially read under procedure for administrators, which is the relevant portion to this incident).--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 19:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the article had already been deleted or Esprit15d were not an admin, there remains a perpetual right to request undeletion under the PROD policy. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maplewooddrive, an admin should review a PROD, and it is entirely within policy to reject a prod and kick it to AFD for a wider discussion. Nobody is in the wrong here. --Dhartung | Talk 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Maplewooddrive. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to ۝ and my fellow Wikipedians on this page for my strong language. I guess my frustration got the better of me. I should always assume good faith (as per WP:AGF).Maplewooddrive 00:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even admins like me can make mistakes. All's forgiven. Happy editing!--Esprit15d(۝ • ۞ • ▲) 12:08, 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 deleted. by admin Tone. W.marsh 14:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bratty Daughter (House of Bloo's)[edit]

This article is about a character who appeared in one episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Just one. It should be deleted and fast. YuckieDuck 14:14, 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 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade 2000[edit]

Beyblade 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't think every season of a tv show is supposed to have an article (I did a quick search on various sci-fi shows and none of them to be knowledge had specific seasonal articles). Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance. These seasonal articles have none of those context or analysis.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, that is non-notable seasonal articles:
Beyblade_V-Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beyblade_G-Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Macktheknifeau 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. As per arguments made just yesterday. This is/was a program that is shown globally. Google test 'Beyblade cartoon' comes up with a lot of results. Why the hate? --EndlessDan 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has nothing to do with the original articles AFD. Regardless of if it was "shown globally", these season articles do not warrant their own page. Macktheknifeau 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then what's your argument? According to your nomination, it's that *you* don't feel that every show deserves it's own page. Which I agree with, to an extent. However, this isn't a local access show we're discussing. When a show yields hundreds of results as per a simple Google test and is screened in multiple countries - this clearly demonstrates notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endlessdan (talk • contribs) 15:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe Macktheknifeau is stating that individual seasons of a show do not inherently deserve an article, nor do they inherit notability from the show itself. -- 68.156.149.62 17:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, that is exactly what I mean. The seasons have no notability, nothing I could find supports the notion that they should have seperate articles on each season, and the articles make no attempt to show why each specific season of this tv show is notable. Delete these non-notable season articles, and put them in the original page's thread. Macktheknifeau 14:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Pointy argument yesterday really annoys me. Anyways, with the nom's attitude and the really large number of google hits I think this is at best articles needing expansion or at worst a merge to the main article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator incorrectly describes a separate series as a season, even though this is clearly stated at the start of the article - this is comparable to calling Deep Space 9 a season of Star Trek. Even if the articles were just seasons, not series, there's plenty of precedent for keeping them, look at 24 (TV series) which has seperate articles for every season, or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine which has articles for every single episode. Edward321 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zamball[edit]

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

Prodded but removed by original editor with no explanation. This article appears to be a hoax. There are no references provided, and searching through Google reveals nothing in the short search results to support this article. Whpq 13:39, 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. W.marsh 14:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above & Beyond Children's Museum[edit]

Above & Beyond Children's Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously prodded, unclear notability. Prod removed Moglex 14:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the museum has been the subject of multiple articles in a reliable newspaper. The museum's effort to remain open despite financial problems has been controversial. Royalbroil 15:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article talks about floor space and financial problems but does not address notability in any meaningful way. It appears to be a worthy regional project that does not reach the level of notability. --Stormbay 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's the subject of independent secondary sources. The article putting too much emphasis on floor space and financial problems is a content issue, not a notability one. --Oakshade 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete museum with no claim of notabilty, travelwisconsin is a travel guide, and the other two sources are the local newspaper, which isn't really independent. If more sources are added outside the local area, will change vote. This is a Secret account 02:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The struggle to stay afloat financially is gripping and predominates in the references. The references do not address notability and that is the crux of this discussion. --Stormbay 22:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There would not have been stories about its financial problems unless those secondary sources considered it notable. Business struggle all the time, but not all of them are covered in the press. --Oakshade 16:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If nothing else, it reveals the inadequacy of the article Children's museum. Mandsford 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is very weak. However most museums are notable. Deleting based on the fact that it is poorly written is going too far. I'll try and add a bit. Vegaswikian 19:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This nomination appears to have been inadvertantly duplicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Rudnick. Note the space in that debate's name that is lacking in this debate's title. Both noms took place on the same day, so it is appears to be an inadvertant duplication (as opposed to a second debate following DRV or some such circumstance). The article was deleted on 13 November after this debate was closed, but the other debate remained open. As no editors noted reasons to Keep the article, the result does not appear to be in question - however, I wanted to ensure that the situation was noted here for the record. I have ended the duplicate debate as a non-admin closure. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rudnick[edit]

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

Mr. Rudnick has NOT been the subject of 1)A credible independent biography 2) Widespread coverage over time in the media 3) Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources 4) n depth, independent, coverage in multiple publications showing a widely recognized contribution to the enduring historical record in the person's specific field. And this is just the start Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. Maralia 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Dougie WII 15:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Obvious hoax. Metros 20:56, 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. W.marsh 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Benton[edit]

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

Do I really need to to get into it? Look at the Wikipedia:Notability (people) and then look at this article. I think it's clear. I fact, this damn thing should have been long gone by now. Damn it. I guess if I were to add an arguement in favor of deletion I would begin by just reminding us that Danny Boy has NONE of the following working in his favor; The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. The person has demonstrable wide name recognition The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. But you can't blame th sorry sap, I mean, he's only 24 Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Google hits are all to self-penned references. No independent sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 13:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable. Sports blogger for AOL and MSG (a regional cable/radio network), but only writes for group blogs. Sports bloggers don't even have profiles at either site, so these are not exactly high-profile endeavors. Unable to confirm the claim of writing for Sports Illustrated and Yahoo Sports, or any claim regarding guest radio/podcast appearances. Maralia 14:05, 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 redirected. W.marsh 14:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic data center[edit]

Dynamic_data_center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Dynamic data center concerns a non-noteworthy corporate neologism.-- Mumia-w-18 14:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinded. Oops. A Google search seems to show that it's noteworthy. Sorry everyone.-- Mumia-w-18 14:49, 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 delete (A1) by Charles Matthews. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haru Kotobakanata[edit]

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

Same as previous VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No claim to notability. From the main article: "It was the first manga chapter she done and now that many of her mates are reading it, she continue on writing her first manga." --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:47, 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 14:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Foley (actor)[edit]

Jeremy Foley (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

You want reasons? okay, I'll give you reasons. Here's just a few to get the conversation started -- Roley Foley has NONE of the following 1) significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. 2) a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3 unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Just because one doesn't "have" these things does't mean one is not a good actor. It just means one is an actor with NO business being on Wikipedia. Read the guidelines. Read the article. Read between the lines. Let's delete this vanity and move on with out lives Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 01:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Not notable enough yet for a page of his own. Looking at it again I think he does, just, qualify. So Keep Alberon 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep At least three incoming mainspace links. Imdb says he played in a lot of things, including playing a named character for 31 episodes in a notable TV show (Caitlin's Way). Notable enough for me. – sgeureka t•c 17:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, I created this page so I guess I considered him notable enough to have a page. He was a Monster of the Week for Buffy, and a main character in a television show that lasted 2 seasons. WookMuff 01:46, 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 in lieu of relisting or deleting, I'm going to redirect to DevilDriver. Seems like a standard redirect. W.marsh 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Boecklin[edit]

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

Let's ask ourselves whether Mr. Boecklin - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.[3] Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.) Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:07, 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. Hut 8.5 07:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV overturns to a CSD G4 speedy deletion. Xoloz (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Reid[edit]

Patrick A. Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Well, let's begin with asking ourselves a few question (inspired by wikipedia guideline). Is/Has 1)The person regarded as an important figure or widely cited by their peers or successors? 2)The person known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? 3)The person created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? 4)The person's work either (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries. ? Now, let's not lie to ourselves anymore Thisarticleisundueandneedbeerased 00:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has "won significant critical attention" (several awards it seems), and in any case has had his work published. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Some notability... Not much. Tiptopper 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 203.221.239.39 05:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) — 203.221.239.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. After close comment. -- Jreferee t/c 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has won significant critical attention KNyholm 11:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC) (After close comment. This user is a sock puppet of Alex Buchet, and has been blocked indefinitely. -- Jreferee t/c 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep held in internationally significant libraries. Library of Australia, State Library NSW. Bobsbasement 08:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (After close comment. This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia -- Jreferee t/c 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus. RMHED 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in Cumbria[edit]

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

I seem to recall that there was a policy against local chapters of larger organisations having their own pages. In any case, the article says that there is scouting in Cumbria, then provides us with links to outside websites for the various chapters, which I know is against Wikipedia policy. Nothing on the page suggests anything at all notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We avoid articles for individual units, but an article for the regional umbrella boddy is OK Mayalld 17:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mayalld --Tagishsimon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The consensus developed over a couple of years is that there can be articles on the Scouting unit below the national level. In the US and Australia this means States and in the UK it means Counties. Local chapters (although the term Chapter is never used, at least in UK Scouting) are the individual Scout Groups or Troops and articles on these have been deleted or merged into articles on States or Counties. This has also happened for Scout Districts, individual Gang Shows and so on. The Scouting Project keeps a close eye on these matters. --Bduke 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepper all the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep-there is an article on every Scout county in England, that's not a local chapter, that's a regional org. Chris 22:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The guideline in question is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), specifically:

Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.

The Scouting Project guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS#Non-national articles is derived from the WP guideline. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:38, 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 speedy delete (G11) by GRBerry. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalised curriculum[edit]

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

This article appears to be primarily an advertisement for the Praht Thai School and its teaching methods; there are no sources that would support that this is a significant or widely discussed educational concept. This AfD should include other articles with a similar problem by the same creator:

Not sure how to address your concerns but this is a project that exists and is being delivered in answer to the growing problem of education quality in the Asian region. It is entirely factual and real. It is far from an advertisement but an acknowledgement and explanation of a new methodology in dealing with this important area of education. Please do not censor what needs to be told Praht Thai School is the first to utilise and implement this programme and the only place people can currently see it in action. They must be part of the process - they are the pioneers.This form is the pilot for what it is hoped will become the standard national curriculum form for many countries in the region. It has been the work collaboration of many ministries including Singapore and Australian Ministries of Education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs)

  • Reply. I do not doubt that it is real; I am, however, disputing that it meets the notability criteria. You should read those criteria, decide in what way this project meets them, and then try to provide the reliable sources that shows that this project meets those criteria. If other users are persuaded by your sources that the subject is notable, then the articles will be kept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: Written like an essay and/or advertisement for the school. Unsourced, unnotable, subject. SpigotMap 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi\ Thank you for your feedback but as this article refers to a new methodology just released the kind of cross references you mentioned may be difficult to source. I will however look for them and include them as I find them. This IS important information and balances areas you have not touched on in relation to the area such as the article on parallel immersion which appears to be written by the school mentioned in that article. The work pertaining to the Internationalised curriculum has been conducted by many people over a number of years. While one of the founders of the syllabus has worked closely to ensure the roll out of the first school is successful, this refers to its implementation and affect not to its commerciality. This is every bit as important a milestone as syllabuses such as IB curriculum and Wikipedia is a place that such major breakthroughs should be found not censored. Please reconsider your stance and maintain this important information online —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstand how wikipedia works. ALL content must be written in an encyclopedic manner, must be sourced by independent secondary sources, per WP:RS. Essays are not part of the (front-end) of wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. Subjects also must pass WP:N. SpigotMap 13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to explain how important it is; those kinds of comments aren't really helpful. All we need are the reliable sources that verify its importance. If no such sources exist, then the subject is not notable, and it'll be deleted no matter how important it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources, doesn't appear to be notable yet and reads like an advert.Alberon 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FisherQueen and Alberon. Note that ArisB created three copies of this article, two of which were speedied. I had tagged this one as well, but ArisB removed the speedy tag. I have restored it. Michaelbusch 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and pretty much every other comment here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main article was just speedied. Michaelbusch 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notice that the school may not need to be speedied, if it can be cleaned up of advertising and sourced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:22, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Middle School[edit]

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

This article about a middle school does not assert notability. A PROD was removed with comment: "ususally dont delete schools", but without addressing the notability issue. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:08, 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 per CSD#G3. Wikipedia isn't a place for completely unverifiable "religions" made up last week. You don't have to do even a "gentle stretching of WP:CSD#G3" to apply this to such a blatant nonsense page creation.--Isotope23 talk 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kieferism[edit]

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

Hoax. PRODded by another editor, PROD removed with no reasoning given. No GHits to reliable sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Obvious hoax.Alberon 11:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish we could nominate obvious hoaxes for speedy deletion, but unless I'm mistaken this isn't Wikipedia policy? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not explicitly, but I have seen blatant hoaxes classed as "silly vandalism" and go down quickly under either a gentle stretching of WP:CSD#G3, or slightly less quickly under WP:SNOW. ~Matticus TC 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can apply that here. The article claims the religion was founded a week ago and has now grown to a "Major, moderated religion". This isn't the case of a page made by someone with a unique, but sincere religious belief, but a clear case of silly vandalism. I think it qualifies as a case of hoax nonsense as specified here as it is so blatant WP:CSD#G1.Alberon 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having conducted a good-faith Google search, I have found no evidence that this is a religion practiced by a significant number of people, or which has been written about in reliable sources. It appears that this religion is not quite notable enough for Wikipedia to require an article about it. That, and it's a fairly obvious and not particularly interesting joke page which could reasonably have been speedy-deleted as nonsense. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:23, 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 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Arlene Fraser[edit]

Murder of Arlene Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

OK. I created this article as it seems to be a notable murder case, and was surprised that Wikipedia didn't have anything about it already. However, it may violate WP:NOT#NEWS, although this particular case seemed to have generated continued media interest in the part of the world that I come from. I don't know, what do you think - is the case notable and Wikipedia-worthy? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's good of you to nominate your own article. As to what to do with it: it does not seem very notable, but the book on it would suggest a sufficiency of notability to cause the author to write it. I'm going to guess that this debate will be more about whether people are deletionists or not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are a multitude of sources about the case since 1998 from both the BBC and the Scotsman newspaper alone that I can find, and a book about the case, excluding all the other news references that I haven't looked at yet, or stuff that isn't available online. But that's why I nominated it - I want to see if people think it violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Certainly the case seems to have had more than temporary notability...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also mention that this is the third article that I have created myself that I have nominated for deletion within the past two weeks. I'm not sure exactly why I do this, but it isn't mere attention-seeking. It's the fact that I don't seem to have faith in myself that if I make an article about something, especially a pop culture/news-related subject, that it is truly notable despite the existence of sources. This is because I assume that Wikipedia would have an article about it already if it was notable.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a huge article right now, but certainly notable and worth expanding on - see here for example. Sure, not every murder is notable. But this seems to fit the bill. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if theres a book about it it must be notable to some point.--Cartman005 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Murder victim, so what? Tiptopper 14:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I get the feeling that if this case had happened in the United States, Wikipedia would have had an article on it already and no one would have considered deleting it. News coverage has extended for far longer than in the Madeleine McCann case, although obviously not quite in the same manner as the latter's extreme and constant press coverage.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surely the existence of a book written seven years after the event establishes notability, in the same way that the existence of an independent biography does for biographical article. Good to see that the article is called Murder of Arlene Fraser rather than Arlene Fraser because it's the event that is notable, not the person. Phil Bridger 14:40, 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 delete. W.marsh 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static[edit]

Also much of the information is confirmed in the 26 ghits if you bothered to read them in entirety... many of which are show listings and bio info on the artist's own myspace page confirms that they are indeed from San Francisco and have indeed used other monkiers, while this may not be the most credible source th information has at least been suggested and if there is better information feel free to update the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a noise band, you may not find it relevant, but thats because your not privy to it's pertainence... No reason to delete it... reason for you not to read it. If there is inaccuracy feel free to edit it and make it more accurate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.196.129 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep fried radio static (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Vaguely asserts notability, but isn't notable anyway. The 26 unique ghits do not verify this article. MER-C 10:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, should be a speedy delete, and I'm tagging it as such.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems like patent nonsense JUST from the title...is this an Emo band or patent nonsense? idk. Doc Strange 16:37, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xavener[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites Gavin Collins 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge to Ahlissa. Maintaining the redirect helps searching, and is therefore a good thing. Otherwise, I agree that this article isn't stand-alone material. -Harmil 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Ahlissa. Pinball22 14:08, 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) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Harmil.--Robbstrd 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WAF and WP:Plot, don't see the point of constantly merging things into other articles that also fail policy. Ridernyc 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this one is irrelevant and too small in order to merge. I think deletion is the best option for this one. --businessman332211 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Pinball Edward321 03:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tenh[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate real-world notability, only ghits on fansites. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article could perhaps be merged into some sort of geographical overview of the kingdoms and regions of Greyhawk, but Tenh is an important element of the fiction that's being discussed, here. Of particular note is the Living Greyhawk campaign (a Wizards of the Coast-sponsored organization of regional teams of gamers around the world) whose central team ("Triad") has published articles such as COR2-11: Escape From Tenh, and others that involve this region in story elements that are now part of the Greyhawk canon. -Harmil 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please go ahead and do so. But if you move this material to another, make sure you add secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Greyhawk canon, otherwise the potential threat of deletion will not go away.--Gavin Collins 13:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your consistent use of language such as "opponent" (as I've noted on your talk page) and "threat" in discussing the AfD process and surrounding discussion makes me wonder what kind of goal you have here. -Harmil 14:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Gavin, independent notability is required for the subject of the article, not each topic within it. If Grayhawk is notable, than a discussion in its article of something notable only within that context is acceptable. —Quasirandom 00:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response On the contrary, every article must stand on its own feet when it comes to primary and secondary sources. This is not even an article: it is 2 sentences, neither of which are sourced. There is no evidence that this ficitional dukedom has any notability at all, even within the game setting. --Gavin Collins 10:08, 9 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) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the problems with this stub is that in needs more electons; it has no charge to start with.--Gavin Collins 10:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Harmil. Rray 03:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:plot and WP:WAF, merging things just creates large articles that still fail policy.Ridernyc 22:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 03:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil.--Robbstrd 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. Edward321 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zodal[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:00, 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 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celene (Greyhawk)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICT, has no reliable sources to demonstrate notability, only ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within the canon of Greyhawk, this is a notable kingdom. Primary sources are provided, and while the addition of secondary sources would help improve the article, I don't believe that the article's notability is contested within the larger framework of Greyhawk, which is clearly notable itself. -Harmil 13:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment what about real-world notability outside of the Greyhawk canon? Where is the evidence for that? --Gavin Collins 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I think that the establishment of notability for Greyhawk has already been accomplished indisputably. This article is arguably too small a satellite, though I think that could be argued either way. So, you could certainly make the case that it's not notable enough on its own and should be merged, but I don't agree that deleting material which is notable within its genre is reasonable. I know you don't agree with that, but there it is. I'll have to let other editors weigh in to resolve. -Harmil 14:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is just your opinion, which is not supported by any evidence; there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of Greyhawk, only a long list of primary sources orginating from the publishers. Celene has no real-world notability at all; as far as I know, its just a fictional location that is named on a map of gaming instructions. The primary sources do not indicate that this ficitonal location has any notability per se. -Gavin Collins 09:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not my opinion. That's fact as supported by the sources in the article. We rely on primary sources to tell us about the notability of a subject within its own sphere of influence. What we do not rely on primary sources for is to tell us about the notability of the subject within a larger sphere of influence than the scope of the primary sources themselves. That is, we rely on the sources given here to indicate where Celene falls within the fictional universe of Greyhawk because the sources are authoritative within that scope. You continue to confuse primary sources with non-sources. They have their value. -Harmil 14:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% incorrect. Notability of a fictional concept cannot be established with in-universe information. Primary sources allow you to discuss the topic within another relevant article, but they do not justify a stand alone article. By using only primary sources the article fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:N, and WP:FICT. Jay32183 20:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil above. Web Warlock 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, no notability, fails WP:FICT Macktheknifeau 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Flanaess. Pinball22 14:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge summary into Flanaess. RJH (talk) 18:17, 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) 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil.--Robbstrd 21:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge This topic is not notable on its own, perhaps some of this might be useful info as part of an article about something notable.BreathingMeat 22:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil. Also, what are "ghits on fansites"? Rray 02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, ghits is "Google-hits", which apparently turns up mostly fansites when the term is searched for. BOZ 20:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I guess that makes sense, although I've never heard the word before. Rray 23:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 22:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. Edward321 03:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cauldron (Shackled City)[edit]

Cauldron (Shackled City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Ghits from fansites don not provide real-world content, context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Dungeons & Dragons canon.--Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm tempted to say speedy keep on the basis of the truly incomprehensible AfD listing. What fan site? Paizo? Paizo is, in this context, a primary source, I'll grant, but they're the publisher (or were at the time) of the world's most subscribed roleplaying magazine, so I don't think "fan site" is appropriate. What's more, using insulting or derogatory terms in referring to the subjects of an article in the AfD listing is just bad form in the extreme. Gavin Collins's crusade against fantasy-related articles on Wikipedia is 'widely documented elsewhere, but this AfD will certainly become the touchstone of concerns about his edits. -Harmil 12:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a note here... Gavin meant Google hits, of course (as he explained here), but since this makes at least twice that I've seen this same misunderstanding happen, maybe we should all try to write out Google hits or write it as G-hits or something. Pinball22 14:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about misunderstanding, though it was quite a confusing sentence. As others have stated, Cauldron was the central topic of 12 issues of one of the worlds two most popular gaming publications (the most popular, if you're only talking about roleplaying games). The problem (as I noted at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) is that the idea that notability is not inherited breaks down when a topic such as Arrakis is the central setting of an otherwise notable work of fiction. Is the central setting notable? I think that it does inherit that notability (where, for example, the dragon that appeared in issue 11 of the Shackled City series would not, because it's a minor feature of the notable story). Shackled City was the first of a line of 3 adventure paths that each spanned a year of Dungeon (12 issues) and was widely written about within the gaming industry (see the Shackled City article). That's all about Cauldron and the story-line that took it from obscure outpost in the Greyhawk lore to the exploded and ruined center of a major plotline. -Harmil 00:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shackled City - The adventure is notable but its locations aren't, per WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 13:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Shackled City. Pinball22 14:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Pinball22. -RJH (talk) 18:18, 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) 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, absolutely, per Harmil. At worst, merge per Pinball22. BOZ 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability cannot be established. BreathingMeat 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Opinion revised after notability ref added BreathingMeat 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added a note about the ENnie awards that S.C. was nominated for. Since Cauldron was the primary focus of that book, and much of the book was the history, location and people of Cauldron both the adventure path and the fictional city itself are, IMHO, quite notable. -Harmil 00:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect - I think merging it to Shackled City As 2 people have suggested above would be the best solution. --businessman332211 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil--Robbstrd 21:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. Edward321 03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnd[edit]

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:FICTION, hasn't any reliable sources, just ghits on fansites. Gavin Collins 10:03, 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. W.marsh 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club[edit]

Cardiff University Swimming & Water Polo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club. The 25 unique ghits do not verify the article. MER-C 09:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 19:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in The O.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs in The O.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft meets fancruft. Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics; neither is it an indiscriminate collection of information. A previous AfD in May delivered many keep !votes for "social importance" and that "music plays in important part in television", however it isn't clear to me how either of those reasons justify a 60KB list of song names. •97198 talk 09:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And can I add that Mix 1, Mix 2, Mix 3, Mix 4, Mix 5 and Mix 6 already exist. •97198 talk 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Alberon 09:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The existence of the 6 "mix" means this article is superfluous and a duplicate. Witty Lama 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If i wasn't lazy, i would AFD the mix CDs too. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my reasoning from the first nomination. Otto4711 13:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. How did this survive the first AfD??--EndlessDan 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge or save on some sort of new list wiki.... Doc Strange 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 01:59, 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 merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telchuria[edit]

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

Fails WP:FICT. Gavin Collins 09:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge This region is not significant enough within the Greyhawk published materials for its own Wikipedia article. It should be a redirect, but beyond that any content should appear on an article about the geography of Oerth. -Harmil 13:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Oerth. Pinball22 14:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Pinball22. -RJH (talk) 18:19, 8 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) 18:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & merge to Oerth.--Robbstrd 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Lynn[edit]

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

An model/actress, who appears to be not notable. The article has been deleted four times already[23] (though, it would appear, not with the present contents of the article the first two times around) and I'm bringing it here for consensus on deletion and salting. Thanks. Malcolmxl5 09:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The link to the website of the movie she is apparently in is dead. Even if it's real there's no indication of the importance of the role, or the importance of the film come to that. There's nothing here that warrants a page and if it has been deleted so many times already salting is probably needed.Alberon 10:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Noor Aalam 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 18:54, 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 wasdelete as an unsourced neologism, probably made up in school one day. Bearian 16:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.a[edit]

P.s.a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, probably non-notable. Contested PROD. Computerjoe's talk 08:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but you have to add the AfD notice to the page itself. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Info: I've added the AFD template. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete made up in school one day. JJL 02:38, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 16:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica mann[edit]

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

An unencyclopedic article on a self-published author. Fails WP:BIO. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl 07:44, 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 redirect. W.marsh 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars[edit]

Wong & Owens, Ex-Porn Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This SNL skit is not the sort of ground-breaking comedy that might deserve an article, such as the Coneheads or even Stuart Smalley. According to the article they only appeared in two episodes. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:40, 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. W.marsh 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories[edit]

Korean Air Flight 007 conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I mean no offense to the person who has made this his mission, but the article is totally unnecessary and fails to satisfy several policies and guidelines. (Like WP:RS or WP:V for example.)
Korean Air Lines Flight 007 has a section discussing the theories which gained press attention, revolving around whether the plane was on a spy mission or a legitimate passenger flight. Anynobody 07:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A slightly expanded entry in the main article is probably a better approach than this page.Alberon 10:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, expand section in parent article a bit and redirect this one. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By their very definition conspiracy theories generally can't be supported by reliable sources. --Nick Dowling 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual utter bilge. Is there any event in the last hundred years which wasn't actually ochestrated by an evil cabal of aliens, jewish bankers and baby eating neoconservatives? Nick mallory 11:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I orginally split this off the main article because it was so extensive that it overwhelmed the rest of the content. I had the naive hopes that the daugther article would be clean-upable, but sadly that hasn't happened, and it has become a POV magnet for a particular individual who runs a website that advocates that the plane didn't crash and that the passengers are still being held in the gulag. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What a mess! --John 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Agreed. As a followup to Akradecki's comment, the split off helped reduce the KAL 007 article to almost half of its former size (41,018 to 20,917), and did . When half of an encylopedic article is facts and half is speculation about conspiracies, a split like that's an excellent move. I think that it's better to have a septic tank to hold stuff you don't want stinking up the place, especially since the KAL 007 article was being ruined. However, even a septic tank has to be cleaned. The solution may be to pare down this article so that there can still be a section of the parent article that says, in effect, "Don't put that crap here". Mandsford 02:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It actually has been parred down, the only WP:RS I've found about conspiracy theories and KAL 007 are in the main article already. What's left isn't enough to justify a spin off, which is why that's up for deletion. Anynobody 06:13, 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 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GroupSwim[edit]

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

Delete promotional sounding article about nn company, who is just in beta phase of its product - been deleted as speedy twice before but let's see what the community says; blurbs in on-line magazines that review tech companies and products, are they paid to do these? dunno, but not the significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources to show WP:N per WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anynobody 07:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete as recreated deleted material. --ElKevbo 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an ad for a non-notable company/product. Would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence of notability were provided. --ElKevbo 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, and the owners have made an attempt to link to the Knowledge Management page to promote. --Snowded 10:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant advertising. Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thepeapodfamily[edit]

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

Doesn't fit any CSD, so here it is. Non-notable book, whose article is unverifiable - nothing on google. MER-C 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I just nominated it under CSD G11--the price is on the page along with an invitation to the reader to purchase it. On another note, the idea of expanding CSD A7 to books, etc. was brought up here and here if you'd like to participate in the discussion. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 08:55, 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. W.marsh 14:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Franklin Company[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article by User:RFCO (a WP:SPA with WP:COI?) about a nn company that publishes a football poll - it does not contribute to the BCS standings, so just a guy's poll on his website, that has ads to loan you money. Carlossuarez46 07:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poll is not one of the two human or six computer polls used in calculating the composite Bowl Championship Series ranking (see [24]) and is thus likely entirely non-notable. The only non-BCS poll that is notable is the AP poll. This is a non-notable company that publishes a non-notable poll. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't give a whiff of notability for this company. --Fabrictramp 21:49, 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 keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit[edit]

Col. Bruce Hampton and The Aquarium Rescue Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Band seems to lack notability. No chart history of the band is present, fails WP:MUSIC, and founder of the band lacks notability as well. Admc2006 06:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the band members because they also fail notability and the album page lacks a track listing:

Bruce Hampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jimmy Herring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oteil Burbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In a Perfect World (Aquarium Rescue Unit album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

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

The result was speedy close, redirects should be taken to WP:RFD. There is no article to discuss deleting. Recommend leaving in place as Someguy0830 has pointed out. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 10:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kpop[edit]

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

There is no need for the Kpop article since it is a duplicate of the KPOP disambiguation article (note case). There isn't even a need for a redirect article since redirection would be automatic when only the case differs. I am proposing a deletion rather than a merger since a merger requires leaving behind a redirect. WinTakeAll 06:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question So wait, if the page was deleted, does that mean that the empy page would function just like a redirect and take the user to the KPOP disambig page? Or could someone come along and create a competing article at Kpop? Apologies for showing my ignorance about the technical side of disambig pages. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 08:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • State the obvious First things first, redirects you want deleted go at RFD, not AFD. Second, it was a redirect (albeit a different one) which you made into a copy of KPOP then redirected to KPOP before finally nominating it here. You've solved your own problem. I suggest an admin close this, as this isn't an AFD issue. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I've updated all specific links to bypass this redirect. It essentially links to nothing now. In either case, it's a worthwhile redirect and redirects are cheap. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 09:45, 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 merge. Since this is a complex merge and I know little of this topic, I am just going to add merge tags. W.marsh 14:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discworld languages[edit]

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely plot information from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. I created this article to reorganise a lot of random information in the Discworld Wikipedia domain. Much of it was taken from other articles, and if it is to be deleted then that information should go back where it came from (Dwarf and Troll languages should go back to Dwarf (Discworld) and Troll (Discworld). Ook language (which this article was originally) should probably be merged with Librarian (Discworld). Not sure what to do about Latatian. Serendipodous 14:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. OK; I just reinstated most of the more important material back into its original articles. The rest can go. Serendipodous 20:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:FICT, probably per Pinball22's suggestion to a Language's section in Discworld. —Quasirandom 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - I am leaning towards deletion at this stage due to the failure of the article meeting any of Wikipedia's key policies, namely verifiability and reliable sourcing. The latter meaning that the article doesn't cite a sufficient, number of [or quality] sources. However that is in my opinion. I would support a merge per the creating user's concern, however I am a little worried that if the creating user isn't sure of what to do, what do the community take into account when deciding a keep or delete? Rudget Contributions 17:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft. The web is still out there, folks--not everything ahs to be on WP. JJL 18:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even as a massive Pratchett fan, I can't see any point to having this Tx17777 21:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If merged, this article should be merged into Discworld (world), not Discworld. Significant difference there. 96T 21:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry about that! I was looking at Discworld (world) when I said that and then linked the wrong one. Pinball22 21:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can be merged. Not notable enough for an article, but it'd be a shame to lose any good information. faithless (speak) 10:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Pinball. Edward321 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Granny Weatherwax[edit]

The result was keep - Rudget Contributions 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely a plot summary from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 05:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm finding stuff like this and this which makes me a little uncomfortable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources are out there, if one bothers looking for them. [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] A Google Books search gives 199 results (Many are the Discworld novels, a substantial number are not). Poor quality is no reason to delete an article. The character is notable and the article can be improved upon. faithless (speak) 08:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This character is prominent in the long-running Discworld series of novels, graphic novels, comics, cartoons, games, and other related media. Her history is too complicated to put anywhere else. Discworld is too complicated with a whole world full of characters with detailed histories to cut the article on one of the three busiest in the whole series, arguably more frequently visible than Death or Vimes, Doczilla 09:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep This a character that appears many times in the Discworld series many times as a main character (as opposed to Death who while appers in nearly, if not all, of the books mostly just has cameos). Probably one of the three most notable characters in a very popular series.Alberon 10:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup, an encyclopedic article is possible. Hiding Talk 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep per faithless & Doczilla --AliceJMarkham 12:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the major characters of the Discworld series, appearing in many different books. Needs referencing, but definitely notable. Pinball22 14:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although recent precedent here seems to be leaning toward deleting famous characters that don't have reliable third-party sources. The links provided above merely mention the character as an example of Pratchett's characters and don't discuss the character herself. Powers T 15:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, main character of several bestselling books, second party sources are more than likely to show up if you look for them. 96T 15:58, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 03:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Result endorsed. Good call, user should think about adminship. Hiding Talk 15:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rincewind[edit]

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

Lacks real world notability, cannot be cited to meet WP:FICT, solely a plot summary from which no real world context can emerge Pilotbob 05:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; Rincewind? Rincewind the Wizzard? He's the main character of several hugely successful books, and he's going to be portrayed by David Jason, possibly the most famous TV actor in the UK. That's real-world notability. Masaruemoto 06:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of him and I've never read the books. According to Imdb, he was voiced by Eric Idle. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Some of the articles about fictional characters, places, etc. that Pilotbob has nominated (Discworld languages, for instance) probably do fail to meet the notability guideline. But as stated above, Rincewind the Wizzard is a central character in the Discworld series, and sources are quite easy to find online. I hate not to assume good faith, but I can't imagine the nominator even bothered looking for sources before nominating. A Google search of "Rincewind Discworld" turns up over 95,000 results. A search for just "Rincewind" 795,000 results. Wikipedia does have a problem with cruft from fictional series, and there are many pages that are in need of a merge or deletion, but this is not the case here. Rincewind is an important character from a highly successful series, akin to Albus Dumbledore or Frodo Baggins. The article needs help, that's clear, but to nominate it for deletion is frankly ridiculous.faithless (speak) 08:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:N, although I think the article needs to be cleaned up and refocused as recommended by WP:FICT. --jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 08:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep! Who made these nominations? This is the character that launched a whole Discworld industry! He starred in the first novels which led to dozens more novels plus graphic novels, comics, calendars, games, cartoons, and other media. Doczilla 09:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A major character in a very popular series, played by Eric Idle in a computer game and more importantly David Jason in the upcoming Sky mini-series. Certainly enough notability to be retained. I have to echo the above and question why this was nominated in the first place.Alberon 10:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cleanup, an encyclopedic article is possible. Hiding Talk 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no primary sources to verify to identify which fansites this plot summary has been transcribed from. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability of this fictional character outside of the Discworld canon. --Gavin Collins 11:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin Collins, please assume good faith, and refrain from making baseless accusations of plagiarism. -Harmil 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No such accusation was made, nor any accusation of copyvio or original research. I think it is perfectly alright to transcribe material from other sources, like Discworld & Pratchett wiki, particularly if there are citations showingtheir sources. My gripe with this article is that there are no footnotes to trace back to the orgininal source. --Gavin Collins 13:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that you are correct or incorrect, it is that you are assuming and making accusations of bulk copying without any evidence. This is inappropriate. -Harmil 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Keep per faithless, jonny-mt & Doczilla --AliceJMarkham 12:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but speedy isn't appropriate. The article was listed in good faith because it's not sourced, and that's a real problem that should be fixed to reflect what we all obviously know. -Harmil 12:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep on account of this being an article about the highly notable Rincewind the Wizzard. Is it time to WP:SNOW this yet? AndyJones 14:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably the best-known character from the Discworld universe. Pinball22 14:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Best known character in the Discworld series. Deleting Rincewind is almost like deleting Harry Potter. Ben W Bell talk 15:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, obviously notable, anyone familiar with the Discworld books will know that. 96T 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Major character of seven books which have all sold in the millions...one of the most recognizable figures in possibly the worlds biggest and most popular fantasy series...being played in a major TV adaptation by David Jason...what more can a fictional character do to become notable? Tx17777 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. I think the nominator is out to prove a point. Guy (Help!) 01:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He's about the only character from Discworld I can name off the top of my head.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The idea of deleting this page is utterly ludicrous and bespeaks of someone with a grudge. WookMuff 02:39, 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. W.marsh 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Discworld concepts[edit]

Minor Discworld concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These concepts lack real world notability and are not cited in reliable secondary sources (WP:FICT). Additionally, they lack a real world context and are solely a plot summary (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob 05:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anynobody 07:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless outside sources are found. If such sources are found for a concept, merge that particular concept back to Discworld. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much as I like Discworld I can't see the justification for keeping this page. If someone was to host it off Wiki and then link to it from the main page that would be better.Alberon 10:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Discworld. While this is an interesting collection of things, a lot of it is not notable. Some parts, though, could be merged into other articles, so we should probably keep the history around in a redirect. Pinball22 14:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Discworld per Pinball22. The information in this article should be merged into different articles IMO, eg, Battle of Koom Valley to Thud!, Dark light to The Truth, Dimwell Arrhythmic Rhyming Slang to Going Postal. Bláthnaid 20:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I would like to switch my vote to abstain at this time due to this investigation WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. Pilotbob —Preceding comment was added at 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep and prune. After doing some searching, I've found that some of the items in this article have real-world significance. The term "octarine" appears to be used in chaos magic and has been adopted by the occultist Peter J. Carroll [30] [31] [32]. "Boffo" is explained in a review. Information about "figgin" in the introduction to Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature [33]. I've come across journal articles on Google Scholar that reference Discworld concepts. I don't have access to them, but they do suggest that some of the concepts are notable and verifiable -- "octarine" [34] "quantum" [35] [36] [37] "thaum" [38] Bláthnaid 12:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune. Full disclosure: I'm a big Discworld fan. The case for notability outside the context of Discworld has been made for several items on the list; furthermore, in a practical sense, Discworld books tend to use several in-universe concepts multiple times, by name, and it's easier to have them all here than have to explain, say, octarine in every single article where it's mentioned. That said, this should be limited to things which actually recur; "figgin" and "boffo" aren't there yet. --Stlemur 13:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune and add real world information and references, since Bláthnaid has shown that many of these concepts indeed are notable. 96T 14:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I agree it needs some tidying. Salmanazar 20:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bláthnaid has done a good job of showing and sourcing notability. Edward321 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont 11:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fist of the North Star characters[edit]

List of Fist of the North Star characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a permissible content fork of a list that would overwhelm the main article, in the same vein as Characters of Lost and List of characters in Heroes. There is no reason to delete it. It has problems that need addressing, but AFD is not cleanup and the carbon-copy rationale used does not show any attempt to actually review the material. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no primary or secondary sources to justify this plot summary which has no real world context or analysis. Basically this is a list of fictional characters that have no notability outside of the North Star canon. --Gavin Collins 11:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a list article, it's overly verbose, but I think trimming and sourcing is more worthwhile than creating individual articles. Frankly, I'm not sure why this needed to be AfDed rather than simply discussed on the talk page or directly improved. Lack of sourcing is easily fixed, and I don't think anyone is suggesting that the article represents OR so much as simply lacking sources. -Harmil 12:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate supporting article for Fist of the North Star per WP:SUMMARY. Pinball22 14:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pinball 22, Someguy0830 and Harmil. This used to be a sub-section of Fist of the North Star, but was splitted from the main article due to the fact that made things too big. Even now, the article is getting too large. Jonny2x4 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:FICT permits for a series article of this type in the event it outgrows the main article. The article does need copyediting, reformatting, and reorganization. The characters do need to be reevaluated based on their significants to the series. --Farix (Talk) 03:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain I would like to switch my vote to abstain at this time due to this investigation WP:ANI#User:Pilotbob. Pilotbob
  • Keep A character list for one of the 100 most popular anime series makes sense. It, at the very least, helps to serve as a redirect target for character articles. -Harmil 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - satisfies treatment of characters as per WP:FICT. Cleanup is in order, but that is not a cause for deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally sensible article to have. --Gwern (contribs) 19:55 11 November 2007 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanto Seiken[edit]

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

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless outside sources are found. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like Hokuto Shinken, it needs some real world references and a bit of a clean-up. But otherwise, its a very major fighting style. Merging it with Fist of the North Star is only going to make the article longer. If possible, it could be merge with List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star. Jonny2x4 20:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The entire article is mostly a plot summery with no real world context or references. Even if such context was added, there doesn't appear to be enough of it would need its own article instead of using it to improve the main article. As for dealing with the the main article, there are much better sections could be split off, such as the long Adaptations section, and the volume lists/tables should be spiked as unnecessary clutter. --Farix (Talk) 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star. I've voted keep on that article's AfD for exactly this purpose. That article already has sufficient detail on this topic. -Harmil 21:31, 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 or merge. Editorial decision at this point. W.marsh 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hokuto Shinken[edit]

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

Subject lacks real world notability and cannot pass the secondary source requirement of WP:FICT. Also is solely in universe plot information (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) Pilotbob 05:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hokuto Shinken is a central fighting style in the series. Not only that, it has been parodied in numerous Japanese fiction (such as Urusei Yatsura and Great Teacher Onizuka to name a couple), so it has some notability. Just because the series is not well known to English speaking anime and manga fans doesn't mean the series is not notable in Japan. While I agree the article needs some cleanup, an AFD is not a solution. Jonny2x4 20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it has been parodied, then that needs to be added to the article and sourced. (Wasn't it also parodied in Bobobo-bo Bobobo, or however you spell it?) Which would be enough to demonstrate out-of-universe notability. If this is done before the AfD expires, keep; otherwise, merge into either List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star or, if that doesn't survive its AfD, into Fist of the North Star. —Quasirandom 00:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bobobo is pretty much a parody of Fist of the North Star, with Hanaga Shinken (Super Fist of the Nose Hair) being a spoof of Hokuto Shinken (God Fist of the North Star). Hokuto Shinken's influences in other works is apparent and the fact that Pilotbob declares it to have no real world notability shows a bit of ignorance from his part with all due respect. Its almost as if he made all of these AFDs using some kind of generator. Jonny2x4 02:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it back to the copyeditor. The article clearly needs someone with a cleaver to cut out the overly detailed plot details and then rewrite the rest of the article from an out-of-universe perspective. The article should focus more on its influences on other series when such influences are well documented. Or perhaps that aspect should be merged into the main article instead and the rest of this article deleted. --Farix (Talk) 03:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star. I've voted keep on that article's AfD page specifically because its various child articles should be merged into it. That article already has sufficient detail about this fictional style. -Harmil 21:30, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 14:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star[edit]

List of fighting styles in Fist of the North Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FICT due to lack of secondary sources, fails WP:NOT#PLOT due to being a long plot summary with no real world context Pilotbob 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless outside sources are found. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Fist of the North Star page. Doc Strange 16:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was having second thoughts about this since many of the fighting styles in the series are very character-specific (Rakan Niouken used by Devil's Rebirth, Nishin Furaiken used by Raiga and Fuuga and so on) , but ultimately if Wikipedia can have articles like Jutsu (Naruto) and Spells in Harry Potter, then I don't see any problem. All it needs to be adequately sourced. Either that or merge with List of Fist of the North Star characters. Jonny2x4 02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This level of detail is unnecessary and unwarranted, especially when it is not given an encyclopedic treatment and does not contain any real world relevance or references. --Farix (Talk) 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, content lacks sources, and appears to be plain fancruft. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain due to ANI discussion Pilotbob 08:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My first reaction was delete, but I'd like to suggest that we keep this. There are a number of child articles which should really go away and become redirects here, and Fist of the North Star is too long as it is. There's a cultural element here. As you can see in the Japanese version, which has an administrative template suggesting it be broken up, this is a fairly substantial topic in Japanese pop-culture fiction. I think an article about the martial arts styles which are a key feature of the story, not just throw-away plot elements, makes sense and helps to provide a merge target for the plethora of sub-articles about each style. -Harmil 21:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ironically, Sesshomaru cites the fancruft page without noticing that it a) does not constitute Wikipedia policy and b) notes that the claim can be used as a pejorative. The article should be sourced, preferably to individual mangas or some kind of compilation about FotNS, but for anyone looking to find out about FotNS having an understanding of the basis of the show, i.e. the martial arts, is vital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArekExcelsior (talk • contribs) 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Harmil's arguments: the individual styles (some of which are independently notable; see their individual AfDs) should be merged into here as a summary split from the main article. —Quasirandom 18:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Harmil. Edward321 03:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Coverage by the tabloids doesn't cut it, and BIG WP:BLP issue. PeaceNT 13:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Basabe[edit]

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

Non notable individual ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. A person that become known because it "was photographed dancing with President Bush's daughter Barbara at a New York party" does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion. 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to note that the article is well sourced and the person is partially a credible person in my opinion, but I do have to take in account why (which is reflecting my vote). Dancing with the president's daughter isn't something that would be remembered 3, 5, 10 years down the line. That is why my vote is to delete it. BeanoJosh 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note In some venues it is not polite for a woman to refuse to dance when asked. So very little can be inferred from the fact that they danced together. Steve Dufour 14:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another note It would have been rude of Miss Bush to say, "I don't want to dance with you because you are a notorious person." On the other hand, if she had been a bit quicker and said something like, "No thanks. I'm a bit tired and want to sit this one out.", there would be no article. Steve Dufour 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Again. Sourced, and notable. - Rjd0060 05:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have become established (via DOPOTUS) as someone whose doings are of interest to readers of gossip magazines, watchers of reality TV and so on. Not very notable, but notable enough, I think. Some of the critical material needs to be sourced or scrapped. JQ 07:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Noor Aalam 15:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourced, yes, but still not notable. Wikipedia is neither newspaper nor tabloid, and nothing this fellow has done is encyclopedic in nature. Look up the page on biographies of living people, the answer is pretty clear. Harukaze 15:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sourced, not notable, and the entire thing is one big WP:BLP violation. You remove the attacks on him, and you've got that he danced with a Bush daughter. Corvus cornix 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Harukaze. Hal peridol 21:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable person. I am also concerned that WP Democrats are wasting valuable time on this kind of thing when they should be helping Hillary, Obama, or whomever they like. Steve Dufour 05:26, 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 Delete. --Tikiwont 10:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Queen[edit]

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

Non-notable drag queen SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Umm, yeah. NN - Rjd0060 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Delete. Hahaha... nothing really much to say. Myspace is it's only source and she is definitely not a notable person. Sorry.
  • Delete Just about an ounce short of a speedy A7. CitiCat ♫ 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless someone manages to show notability and find reliable sources. --AliceJMarkham 12:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - I don't see any evidence of notability in the article or a Google search. Aleta 19:04, 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 Delete. --Tikiwont 11:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podcasting directories[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOT, WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a directory Hu12 04:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - it's an indiscriminate directory of, well, directories. -SesameballTalk 04:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: DUH. Per Not a Directory. - Rjd0060 04:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 05:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good attempt to create a list of subjects. It takes A LOT of work and I'm sorry to have to make it in vain. But I am voting this was per nom. The article does, in fact, fail those wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 05:23, 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. This is the coverage of a brief event, not of any historical significance. No chance of substantial sources. WP:NOT#NEWS applies. PeaceNT 13:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot[edit]

2005 Dubbo New Years Eve Riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Notability is not asserted in article or suggested by sources. —dustmite 04:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It is sourced, but it isn't important / notable. - Rjd0060 04:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Reliable sources are in the article and it was well written (although small), but this article fails WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking 11:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources indicate WP:NOT#NEWS: "Routine news coverage ... not sufficient basis for an article". --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What degree of coverage do you feel would be necessary to warrant inclusion? Everyking 11:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nine people arrested? Two police officers injured? Earthshaking. No less significant, I suppose than the drug roundup in Miller County where a bunch of people went to jail. Notable? That's a riot. Mandsford 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have some level of arrests that need to be made or policemen injured that needs to be reached in order for riots to be notable? The way I see it, a riot is notable, even if only locally, and as long as we have the necessary sources there should be no problem with having an article. Arrests and injuries are not a very good way to assess notability; we should look at whether it was viewed as significant through news coverage. A riot in which nobody is injured or arrested is notable if it has been viewed as a significant event. Everyking 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No: and therein lies the problem with establishing the boundaries of notability. That's not to say that there is not a boundary, and that articles should not be placed on one or other side of it. I honestly think that riots such as this are relatively commonplace. We have enough problems with wikiholicism and wikicounts. Lord preserve us from the phenomenon of wikirioting, where participants seek to ensure that last night's disturbance is written up in the encyclopaedia. Meanwhile, though, I have changed my vote from delete to keep ... perhaps it is the context of the riot that assists in establishing notability - this one does seem to have been a big thing for Oz, whereas it sounds like an average friday night in many english towns. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google convinces - against my expectations - that this was a widely enough reported event. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news This is a Secret account 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not news, etc, etc. Unfortunately not too many Aussies on WP, they probably didn't catch this. Such a thing would not survive if it was an American event (ie Dinkytown riots) .:DavuMaya:. 21:40, 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. --Tikiwont 10:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

De-caf Double Half Caf[edit]

De-caf Double Half Caf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional coffee from L.A. Story. It's a famous scene, but not so famous that we need an article about something that only existed in a line of dialogue. No merging is necessary as the quote is already in L.A. Story, and no redirect either, because this isn't the correct name, and isn't even close to the one quoted in the film. Masaruemoto 04:11, 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 since it is unclear which reliably sourced content could be merged. --Tikiwont 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic JROTC Staff[edit]

Olympic JROTC Staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is focused more on the people in the battalion than the actual battalion's history, operations, or reputation. Does not display enough notability to survive as its own article. This is better to merge this into the Olympic Community of Schools article, if there is one. Also, it needs wikifying because of NPOV and most likely COI issues with "The 2007-2008 Brigade Staff is said to be the best Olympic has ever seen..." Other JROTC Battalions around the nation just merge this type of information into their high school's main article. See Lowell High School (San Francisco)'s JROTC section (This battalion is one of the best in the brigade as well). - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I guess it could be added to the schools article. But otherwise, delete because it really isn't notable. - Rjd0060 04:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contains unsourced entries, or to what seems like an opinion. A agree with the nom and Rdj0060; it should either be moved within the school article as a section or deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeanoJosh (talk • contribs) 05:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Even if there's a JROTC section in the school article I don't see the point to us listing this information. --Dhartung | Talk 10:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's been five days, an admin should come close this AfD and make a decision. Thanks for your help! - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as it results clearly from the debate that there is not yet enough independent reliable coverage to write an encyclopedic article. --Tikiwont 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Ring Theory[edit]

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

Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion" NeilN 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Needs a lot of work. Getting rid of the OR and adding more sources mainly. Other than that, there area few print sources to back it up, and it seems notable in the realm of physics. - Rjd0060 04:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER BY W.GUGLINSKI:

NeilN said:
Original research, essay - basically same as "Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion"

However basically NeilN is wrong, because:

1- In the case of Zitterbewegung and Cold Fusion, the article shows a FACT: that there is a wrong belief among those ones that think cold fusion occurrence be theoretically impossible. The belief is wrong because the electron's zitterbewegung makes the cold fusion occurrence be possible theoretically. So, the article shows a FACT

2- In the case of Quantum Ring Theory, the article supplies Wikipedia with an information about a new theory that is reading by people worldwide.

  • There are teachers of Physics encouraging the students to read Quantum Ring Theory, as we see in the link:
    • Need help: quantum ring theory
    • Was told to read up on it by my professor , but then wikipedia no entry . anyone got any useful link ?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:AbHrgF4t9SwJ:forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D104358+%22quantum+ring+theory%22&hl=pt-BR&ct=clnk&cd=34&gl=br

      • The book is beeing read by students, physicists, reviewers, in the whole world, and this is a FACT.

Look:

Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski- [ Traduzir esta página ]Amazon.com: Quantum Ring Theory: Books: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski. www.amazon.com/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/0972134948 - 166k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Barnes & Noble.com Books: Quantum Ring Theory, by Wladimir ...- Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion, Guglinski, Wladimir Guglinski, Paperback, Book, ISBN: 0972134948, Barnes & Noble.com. search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780972134941 - 35k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory gifts in india at rediff books - [ Traduzir esta página ]Wladimir Guglinski Quantum Ring Theory at rediff books. books.rediff.com/bookshop/buyersearch.jsp?lookfor=Wladimir%20Guglinski&search=1 - 13k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Buy.com Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : ISBN ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory : Wladimir Guglinski : ISBN 9780972134941 : Book. www.buy.com/prod/quantum-ring-theory/q/loc/106/203008754.html - 86k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Get Published Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory: Foundations for Cold Fusion - In Quantum Ring Theory Wladimir Guglinski presents a radical new theory concerning the fundamental nature ... www.published.com/search/results.aspx?search=Jon - 40k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BiggerBooks.com Discount Bookstore. Bestsellers, New Books, Used ...- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory. Author(s): GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR. ISBN: 0972134948. ISBN13: 9780972134941. Cover: Paperback. Copyright: 08/30/2006 ... www.biggerbooks.com/book/0972134948 - 49k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

››› buch.de - bücher - versandkostenfrei - Quantum Ring Theory ...Quantum Ring Theory - Wladimir Guglinski Titel voraussichtlich versandfertig innerhalb 3 Wochen. EUR 26,99. www.buch.de/buch/14091/686_quantum_ring_theory.html - 25k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Amazon.fr Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir GuglinskiAmazon.fr : Quantum Ring Theory: Livres en anglais: Wladimir Guglinski by Wladimir Guglinski. www.amazon.fr/Quantum-Ring-Theory-Wladimir-Guglinski/dp/toc/0972134948 - 56k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

Quantum Ring Theory:GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR :0972134948:eCampus.com- [ Traduzir esta página ]Buy Quantum Ring Theory by GUGLINSKI WLADIMIR for $25.86 at eCampus.com[ISBN:0972134948]. Save 50 - 90% on new and used books. www.ecampus.com/book/0972134948 - 46k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

BookFinder.com Book directory [e3bb2310]- [ Traduzir esta página ]Quantum Ring Theory by Wladimir Guglinski (0972134948 9780972134941 0-9721349-4-8) · Meeting the Enemy, Becoming a Friend ... www.bookfinder.com/dir/e3bb2310/ - 14k - Em cache - Páginas Semelhantes

      • So, it seems that the users of Wikipedia are trying to suppress the FACT that the book is known by people of many country.
        • I'm against blitzkriegs of scientific-sounding blatherskite to confuse people into thinking stuff is notable. JuJube 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • confuse people??? Said by Eugene Mallove: "Guglinski has interesting and intriguing ideas" That's why as editor of Infinite Energy he decided to publish my paper What is Missing in Les Case's Catalytic Fusion (Infinite Energy Vol. 8 , No. 46 , 2002).

Besides, the own Mallove who encouraged me to put my all papers in a book form. So, I suppose it was not confuse to him, that knew Physics very well. Perhaps it is confuse to people that do not understand Physics, however their opinion cannot be taken seriously. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • STRONG DELETE. Delete. No cites for Guglinski and very few cites for quantum ring theory on Google scholar, so whether or not this counts as original research (I lean towards not) it seems to be non-notable. And the spammy approach by Guglinski himself to this AfD isn't helping. —David Eppstein 06:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Eppstein: You're wrong, because http://scholar.google.com.br/scholar?q=guglinski&hl=pt-BR&lr=&lr= cites Guglinski. W.GUGLINSKI 11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Therefore we can change your vote, as follows:[reply]
      • One citation does not confer notability, especially as it is a book written by the theory's creator. We need third-party references and citations. Hut 8.5 11:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • David, the book QRT has been published in 2006. In order to appear new quotations on the book, the physicists need to read it, to study the proposals, and later to write about them in papers and new books. Such a process takes time. The changings in sience takes several years, mainly because my ideas propose very deep changings in the foundations of Physics. Besides, I wrote only one book. If I had written more books, there would be more quotations W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strengthening my !vote, and removing the "lean towards not" line from my previous comment, as Guglinski's comments including the one above admitting that the work is uncited) have convinced me that his work is original research that must be removed from Wikipedia. I would also like to register a protest about his extremely annoying behavior on this AfD: I refer to the many overlong and badly formatted comments and more particularly to his attempts to get people to change their !vote, formatted as if looking like !votes from the targets of his vote-change requests. I trust the closing admin to collate the opinions appropriately regardless of this obfuscation, but it is making it difficult to hold a true debate on the merits of this article, because nobody is given a chance to discuss the issue with anyone but Guglinski himself. —David Eppstein 02:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete The article isn't even about a quantum theory. It starts off with some statments that Schroedinger and Heisenberg made, and then goes on about how the author of the article had trouble getting his books published. Fails WP:OR. Bobby1011 08:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby,

The development of Physics along the 20th Century had two different currents: Schrödinger and Heisenberg had different opionions about how to develop Quantum Mechanics. So, I supposed to be important to explain to people here in the begginning of the Wikipage on Quantum Ring Theory what is the way adopted in QRT, because it is different of the way addopted currently in the development of Quantum Mechanics, since the Heisenberg's viewpoint prevailed (it's known as Interpretation of Copenhagen).

After that introduction, I told how the QRT was born, and why it was born (one of the reasons because I consider Schrödinger way could not be neglected by the theorists (QM could be developed by considering the two ways together). Perhaps it is difficult to you to understand some things, because you are not an expert in Physics. But those ones that know Physics very well are able to understand why I used this sort of description.

I hope you understand my point now W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) So, I ask you if you change your vote:[reply]

I'm not an expert on physics? How would you know? And should I suppose that you're claiming that you are an expert on physics? I'm a chemist by training and we do actually study a significant amount of quantum theory during the course of our studies, though I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the topic. The article and its proposed theory's deviations for the standard model have nothing to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Copenhagen interpretation does not concern itself with the "hard" theory directly, but is rather concerned with interpreting implications about the role of the observer from quantum mechanics. Handschuh-talk to me 08:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete. The article is even written in first person FFS. Someguy1221 09:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someguy1221: The article is now in the third person. W.GUGLINSKI 10:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Therefore now we can change your vote, as follows:[reply]
  • Someguy1221 Yes, I change my vote
  • Someguy1221 No, I dont change my vote




  • Delete Hopeless and unsalvagable.Alberon 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUBJECTIVE: It is only an personal opinion, not based on any objective criterion. Therefore cannot be considered seriously W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is based on objective criteria. The article is unsourced (except to itself), and the article is biased reading much like and advert for the theory in question. I seriously doubt these problems can be overcome so I cannot see much chance of this article being kept.
  • Delete When will people learn that this is an encyclopedia, not a site to tell your life story? Mr_pand 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr pand (talk • contribs)
  • 'IT'S NOT LIFE STORY - It's the history of a SCIENTIFIC THEORY: how it born, why, what were the troubles, etc. It is very different than a life personal story. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 13:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time I made that comment, the article was written in the first person, and was basically about difficulties in getting the book published. It read very much like a life story. Now, that is not so much the case, although it still doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article, but more like an essay. Also, we need third-party citations. Mr_pand 13:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
  • third-party citations: Already alleged by David Eppstein. Mr-Pand, please dont repeat arguments already posted by other members. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration 200.149.61.187 17:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please allow an admin to judge which views to take into consideration. Mr_pand 17:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course I allow it, but I suppose that the admin will agree that the users cannot repeat several times an argument earlier already quoted by another user. W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, if a user feels another user's reasons for keeping/deleting are valid they are free to restate the reasons. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 05:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. No results for "Quantum Ring Theory" in most of the usual places including Web of Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect. Some results in other databases, but adding "Guglinski" to the search narrows that down to nothing. Article is surely original research? --Kateshortforbob 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • USUAL PLACES ??? If you try to find Eugene Mallove in those usual places as Science, Inspect, Institute of Physics Journals, ISI Proceedings and ScienceDirect, etc., you will find NOTHING. However Mallove is the best known name among the cold fusion researchers. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete very few Google or Google Scholar hits, author doesn't have an article, so little notability. Violation of WP:SOAP and WP:COI as well. Hut 8.5 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPETITION: already said by David Eppstein . Please dont repeat something already said in here. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that someone else shares my opinion does not mean that my opinion is invalid. It is not up to you to decide which comments should be taken into consideration. Please consider David Eppstein's comments above - your aggressive approach to this AfD is not helping your case. Hut 8.5 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • Delete as nonsensical personal essay. JJL 18:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NONSENSICAL ???? Only for those ones that dont know Physics. However we cannot take seriously their opinion.

Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • Delete. WP:SOAP and WP:NOR. Hal peridol 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPETITION: already said by David Eppstein . Please dont repeat something already said in here. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 01:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete -- this is a joke, right? Turgidson 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUBJECTIVE: It's a personal opinion of someone that does not know Physics. Therefore this vote cannot be taken in consideration W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey, how do you know I don't know Physics? Please review WP:AGF. And yes, I maintain what I said. Please review WP:OR and WP:HOAX. Turgidson 03:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]




  • Keep -- the English may be a bit off, but I do agree with the original writer, they discussing facts in terms of what has been published. Therefore, it meets the basic criteria of a entry. Just because some members of the physics community disagree with some of the ideas is NOT reason enough to delete the entry.Flashgordon123 20:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK:
Flash,
Would you like to improve my bad English ? I would be glad if you do it. Also, feel yourself free to make corrections in the grammar and syntax of Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories Thanks very much W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete as original research. No evidence that this is an accepted (or even seriously discussed) scientific theory - anyone can publish a book and claim that it contains "scientific papers", but unless they've been peer-reviewed (and the author himself proudly states in the article that his work has been rejected by reviewers, which ought to start alarm bells ringing) then it means nothing. Cosmo0 13:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cosmo0: Read Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories, and after reading, put again your comment in here W.GUGLINSKI 14:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep It may not be widely accepted and the English is a bit off but it represents a possibility. It should be heavily rewritten to show that it is not all accepted fact. Harland1 15:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to Guglinski's mass replies, I'm going to make one more attempt at this. You clearly do not get this one bit. Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of verifiable information on notable topics (please follow the blue links if you want more clarification on that). We are not a publisher of original thought. Information on wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources that are independent of the content itself (this implies the sources must not have been written by you). Wikipedia is not an arbiter of fact. Wikipedia does not include information because it might satisfy the guidelines/policies one day. Someguy1221 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Someguy: "Wikipedia is meant to be a collection of verifiable information"
Hi, Someguy,
Everything can be verifiable in the book Quantum Ring Theory
But if you wish, or somebody of the Wiki admin, you can talk with Naveen Dankal ( [email protected] ). He is the Indian theorists that posted in the Barnes & Nobel that review on the book QRT.
As my English is very poor, now he is improving the text of my book MODERN PHYSICS TO WHOEVER DOESNT KNOW PHYSICS, written to layman to understand the foundations proposed in QRT.
Unfortunatelly Eugene Mallove is dead, because he could give additional informations.
The review by Naveen Dankal:
WHOA!!...we have a breakthrough here!!! Hi I just came across this book 'Quantum Ring Theory' by Wladimir Guglinkski and found it quite exhilarating and thrilling. The thrill is in the way Quantum Theory is being treated in this book which is totally a new approach to physics. The proposed structure of the Neutron in terms of n=p+e, the ZOOM Effect, Helical trajectory, a completely new interpretation of DUALITY are some of the most original works of the author. I don't think I have seen any of the Modern Physicists as original as Wladimir. I must say that any serious physicist must go through this book and I would be glad if some of the universities come out with funds to perform certain experiments to establish Guglinski's Quantum Ring Theory. WLADIMIR.......HATS OFF MAN!!!!!!
Concerning the question of fundamental requirement for cold fusion, mentioned in Don Borghi's experiment and Cold fusion theories, the question that the cold fusion theorists are unable to respond was arisen by the nuclear chemist Mitch, in his Chemistry Forum. So, you could talk with him, in http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=17140.0
Earlier to know Quantum Ring Theory, Mitch was sure that cold fusion is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE. Now, after getting knowledge that cold fusion can be explained from the zitterbewegung as shown in Cold fusion theories, it seems that Mitch changed his mind. W.GUGLINSKI 05:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The book itself is no use, obviously, as you wrote it. What we're asking for is independent sources on the web that support your argument. As it stands the article, like the newer one you've put up Don Borghi's experiment reads more like a piece of WP:OR as mentioned above. Even if those articles are kept in the end, they're going to have to be rewritten to remove the bias and present both sides of the argument.Alberon 09:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Comment I work at a university and that is not how most scientists operate. If a theory that radically changes the view of the universe appears true they run with it. This would make the careers of anyone who verified the theory. Peer Review actually works very well and there isn't some grand conspiracy to ignore your theory. Just look at the 20th Century where virtually every model of the universe was systematically overturned as new observations came in. Your theory is non-notable and does not deserve a page (or pages) on Wikipedia. Alberon 09:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JzG. With edit summary that makes us look very unprofessional. W.marsh 14:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crapware[edit]

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

WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, and WP:NOR. Captain panda 04:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete amusing but not encyclopedic. JuJube 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Again, per NEO or DICT. - Rjd0060 04:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. It's a valid slang term that I've used, generally in the context of spyware or adware, and turns up nearly half a million hits on Google, but I can't see the article ever being more than a dictionary definition of the word, so not appropriate here per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I don't really see the OR that the nom is commenting on, though. Neil916 (Talk) 08:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Firefox? Delete obviously. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per above comment by Neil916. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary, unless enough content can be added to make this an encyclopedic subject. At present it's just a dictdef, and the first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't give solid sources for expansion. --Fabrictramp 21:01, 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 - high on cute but low on notability. I shall make the content available to anyone who want to merge in any notable creatures. TerriersFan 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rabbids[edit]

List, completely unnotable Knowitall 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non notable and the sources there come from first party origins. - Rjd0060 04:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep The article needs work as it doesn't comply with standards for lists, but the subject matter is reasonable. Rayman is well known and well selling series, and rabbids are primary antagonists. Article has a few statements sourced(poorly). Much of this content would have to be included in other articles. As it stands, reason for deletion: "unnotable" is specious at best. i kan reed 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • modifying vote. Rabbids does indeed cover the information I'd expect to see. i kan reed 15:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAAAAAAAAHH-lete The Rabbids as a whole have notability for being the unexpected stars of their series. On the other hand, a list of each and every Rabbid is a bit excessive (the main Rabbid article already has a few good examples of them) and borders on using Wikipedia as a fansite and not a general-purpose encyclopedia. Is there a Rayman wiki this could be transwikied to? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 08:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH-lete - We don't need a list of ervery Rabbid out there, is there a Rayman wiki about? Or maybe that video game wiki we keep mentioning...oh what was that called again?!?!?!?! ViperSnake151 14:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' This meets no criteria for speedy deletion. Speedy delete is not the same as strong delete. i kan reed 17:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a few significant ones into the Types section of the Rabbids article... even though Rayman Raving Rabbids is one of my favorite games of recent years, this is really an unnecessary level of detail about the cute/evil little guys. Pinball22 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete should be a web page, not a WP entry. JJL 18:48, 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. --Tikiwont 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Purple Turtle (bar)[edit]

The Purple Turtle (bar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable small group of bars.Masaruemoto 02:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. Non-notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On the one hand the pubs appear in a bunch of pub guides (as Googling will show) is pretty well established and popular. I'm not sure there's anything else that distinctive about them that would give more meat to the article. What are the notability guidelines for pubs anyway? Artw 06:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I don't know either, though I live in Reading and the bar there is popular and quite well known locally. How well known the other two are is unknown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberon (talk • contribs) 11:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite well known in Camden, though a little looked down apon by pub snobs. I've had drinks there a fair few times. Artw 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Google and even Google News do return some results, and some of these may even be WP:RS, but coverage does appear to be trivial. I may change my mind though if people can adequately source this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:04, 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, CitiCat ♫ 03:38, 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 speedily deleted by Heimstern (G1). Non-admin closure. Deor 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huston Sacajawea Antartica[edit]

Huston Sacajawea Antartica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Apparently a hoax article. Dougie WII 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like an admin speedied it already -- Dougie WII 02:50, 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 14:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fail2ban[edit]

Fail2ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

prod tag was in place for six months, notability tag for six months before that. This is a non-notable piece of software and nobody has ever stepped up to establish why it deserves an article or bring the stub up to even basic copyediting standards. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually the article had been deleted because of the PROD and I just restored it yesterday upon request. The diffs are these [39] [40] Unfortunately my comment in the edit history does not make that very clear. The request mentions one source (in German), but it is indeed unclear whether there is sufficient independent coverage. --Tikiwont 08:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I did some googling and the German article mentioned likely is this review from August in a magazine called "PC Professionell" [41] (google translation). There's also some other articles about it in google (e.g. [42] [43] [44]). So, it seems to be at least somewhat notable to me. -Allefant 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) This is a Secret account 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Somewhat notable, but does need some sourcing in the article. - Rjd0060 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, I am the one who initiated this article after I saw alternative tools listed within wikipedia (they are referenced from Fail2Ban page). At the moment, Fail2ban seems to be the only tool of such kind which is still being developed and maintained. How "noticable" fail2ban is? as noted above -- googling brings A LOT of references and the stories of success. The main author of Fail2ban from time to time treats me with the kind emails from the users expressing their gratitude (unfortunately I can't cite or reference those from the article). Nevertheless I added few more references to the Internet-published articles highlighting Fail2Ban, also I added a couple of citations. I hope it would be sufficient to keep the article within wikipedia and remove the "deletion" banner. Thanks everyone in advance! Yarikoptic 05:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of boxing rivalries[edit]

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

WP:NOR; subjective list because the criterion states it's a partial list of some famous boxing rivalries, so judging which rivalries are famous enough to be listed requires original research. If any boxing rivalries are notable enough to have an article created, they can be added to the existing Category:Boxing rivalries. Theoretically this list could include every pair of boxers in history who have had two or more fights. Masaruemoto 02:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with the above - WP:NOR and it really could include every fight as suggested above Duke of Whitstable 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in it's current form - but allow for rewrite. There would have to be sources (plural) that refer to the pairing as a rivalry. If someone wanted to do that list, it would be okay. CitiCat ♫ 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Whitstable. Pure original research. - Rjd0060 04:50, 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. Will be userfied if requested. PeaceNT 13:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Demerest[edit]

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

Delete unsourced one-line sub-stub for an actor in a red-link show; nn - no sources, is he alive or dead? when and where born? is this show notable? is this it? unless something can be found, delete Carlossuarez46 02:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - I'm going to go ahead and speedy delete tag this; no sources, no information. --tennisman 02:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, IMDb shows nothing but this still-in-production "Ghost Hunters International" show, does not appear to be a notable figure yet. --Stormie 02:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The name is incorrectly spelled, there is this "news" report about the programme http://www.worldscreen.com/newscurrent.php?filename=scifi101107.htm but still Duke of Whitstable 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable (unverified), and too little context to constitute an article. - Rjd0060 04:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and userfy -- I just pulled a number of refs on the show, Ghost Hunters International. It's a new spinoff of the definitely notable Sci Fi Channel series, Ghost Hunters. There was just a pilot this month and the series starts on the Sci Fi Channel early next year. Demarest (not Demerest as it's spelled in this article) has little Internet presence today -- a few passing media mentions and a virtually empty IMDB entry. The new show already meets our notability criteria and I am sure that Demarest, as one of the stars will soon meet it. Until then, we need a reliably sourced article and this one just isn't going to make it without more out there. --A. B. (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —A. B. (talk) 06:02, 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 Delete. --Tikiwont 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Comedy Men From Tomorrow[edit]

The Comedy Men From Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short article on a comedy troupe, created by WP:SPA, with the only reference being (you guessed it) their website. 30-odd ghits, some live reviews but that's it. They play in indie venues instead of comedy clubs. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:55, 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 keep given Secret's proposal, which is an editorial decision that should be discussed on the article's talk page, and not a request for deletion. There are no arguments to delete. Coredesat 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball free agents 2007-2008[edit]

List of Major League Baseball free agents 2007-2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What does this article do? All it does is lists the free agents for this year, something that can easily be found in mlb.com, si.com, yahoo, and many other sites. Not encyclopedic, violates WP:NOT#INFO and WP:NOT#NEWS Delete This is a Secret account 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think this meets the NOT criteria above, the fact that something can be found elsewhere is not really relevant (no wikilinks on those sites), seems okay under Wikipedia:Lists CitiCat ♫ 03:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly does not fall under any of the 5 items under WP:NOT#INFO info... contrary to popular belief that section isn't for any information you claim is "indiscriminate", but only for the 5 types of collections it specifies. Who's a free agent in what year is of long term importance and interest. --W.marsh 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Important info in the baseball world. Doesn't fall under NOT. Well organized list IMO. - Rjd0060 05:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RJD and W.marsh. Let's also note that "you can find it somewhere else" really isn't a valid delete reason. --SmashvilleBONK! 18:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After thinking about it for a little while, I realized this would actually be a very useful list. Nice idea that I wouldn't have thought of. Wizardman 01:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm I noticed that lists from 2005 and 2006 were created before, and they redirect to this article, I don't mind a list of current free agents if they get redirected as soon as the new group comes next year, so I support a rename to Current Major League Free Agents or something like that. This is a Secret account 01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afraid we'll run out of kilobytes? Having a lot of information is a good thing. --W.marsh 01:57, 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. PeaceNT 13:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of Arms of Coates[edit]

Coat of Arms of Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This unsourced article that fails to assert notability (though falling under no CSD criterion) seems to have been created primarily so that a certain nonnotable Michael Joseph Coates can see his name in Wikipedia. For this reason I am also nominating the following article, created by the same SPA as a nonstandard sort of redirect:

Michael Coates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Deor 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say Keep Coat of Arms of Coates (needs work and sourcing ASAP, but thats no reason to delete, as the article is only a couple days old) and Merge Michael Coates (one sentence can be added to the first article IF the guy is actually important). - Rjd0060 05:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a coat of arms for a family name is not normally notable, and this seems to violate not a directory of genealogical data. At best this could be in Coates (an article which seems to define the notability of Michael Coates as ... someone who is entitled to a coat of arms). --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree that the article needs work, but it does refer to an entry in a Government-run register of notable families and seems to have historical significance for the Scottish people. Any person who has been granted a coat of arms in Scotland is, under law and the Letters Patent making the grant, "a noble of the noblesse of Scotland" ("noble" in latin is, by definition, "notable" or "known"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Griddinnn (talk • contribs) 11:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Griddinnn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep because there are many other examples of pages relating to coats of arms on Wikipedia and to remove this would be inconsistent —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esther12345 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Esther12345 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I would say Keep because entries in the Public Register are historically significant. If discussions regarding coats of arms were not allowed on Wikipedia then the whole Heraldry topic should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GabriellaMacArthur1234 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — GabriellaMacArthur1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - any suggestion that coats of arms (or persons entitled to them) are non notable or insignificant is incorrect to those who study the subject. Historically, arms were only granted to the nobility or the gentry who had delegated authority from the Sovereign to raise armies, pax taxes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldrywatch (talk • contribs) 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — Heraldrywatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. I apologize for starting what is clearly turning into a festival of sockpuppets. I have no doubt that the closing admin will keep in mind the motto Consensus unius non facit retentionem. Deor 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment emotive language undermines the neutrality of Wikipedia and suggests a personal, rather than objective, involvement in a subject. Users are recommended to refer to Sir Thomas Innes of Learney's work, "Scots Heraldry", to understand the importance (and notability) to the Scottish people of The Public Register and entries within it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.6.9 (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being armigerous doesn't make the subject WP:N Mayalld 13:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The repeated deletion of the {{afd}} tag from the article isn't doing it any favours. Mayalld 13:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Likewise, editing the content of this discussion isn't helping Mayalld 13:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refer to the many other coats of arms (especially of the Polish nobility) of various families under Heraldry stubs. Who is to decide which armigerous family is WP:N and which isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EvanlloydASA (talk • contribs) 13:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — EvanlloydASA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax (considering the name of the coat and the lack of Ghits for the person) and non notable even if it exists. Additional disruptions will be blocked without without further warnings. --Tikiwont 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest Keep. The article could do with some work (suggest, e.g. merging Michael Coates and this article plus some referencing). I do not know much about the topic, but seems a legit subject area and worthy of retention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.159.24 (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) — 81.224.159.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete A non-notable coat of arms of the type every country in Western Europe has hundreds or thousands of. Please note that User:Griddinnn, User:EvanlloydASA and User:Heraldrywatch, have all appeared on the same day and have only made edits to this deletion request, the article in question and/or the article about Michael Coates. This looks a heck of a lot like deliberate application of sockpuppets by User:Mppp111. Valentinian T / C 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And User:Esther12345 and User:GabriellaMacArthur1234 are clearly socks as well. They've made no edits except for the one here. Valentinian T / C 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And btw, the similar Polish articles are only kept at all because these insignia were generally used not by one family (as is the case in W. Europe) but often by 20 families or more per insignia. The Polish arms were effectively the rallying insignia of military units, and functioned as such for centuries. This gives them more notability than mere family symbols. Valentinian T / C 00:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting debate concerning the subject of notability. Based on the definition of "notability" contained in Wikipedia, I would say that the subject could potentially be notable but the article needs further work to establish this. On that basis, I would suggest that the article be kept for now but it must be improved to establish this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.146.0.41 (talk) 11:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not all coats of arms are notable, Wikipedia is not an heraldic directory and so on. This is a non-notable coat of arms, despite the flock of socks flapping round it. HeartofaDog (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate is becoming very difficult to keep track of, with multiple SPA editors chipping in, and allegations of sockpuppetry, so let us settle that question! Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mppp111 Mayalld 12:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CLOSING ADMIN See SSP case. This is an obvious sock and vote stacking case. Mppp111 and 5 socks are blocked, tagged, and categorized as his socks. Strongly suggest not counting input from these users. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 14:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Grimes[edit]

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

Article from single-purpose account, orphaned since Sep 2006. Person who has worked as a musical act co-ordinator for a TV show, as well as a video editor and production staff. Article also asserts he was a member of Creed, though the Creed article doesn't mention him. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Orphaned article, that doesn't verify any notability. - Rjd0060 05:06, 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. --Tikiwont 09:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Clayton[edit]

Bradley Clayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable golf pro. Fails WP:BIO by any measurable criterea. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom (definately does not meet BIO). - Rjd0060 05:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO. --Oddharmonic 22:07, 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. W.marsh 14:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corning (Amtrak station)[edit]

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

I couldn't see anything in this article that makes this particular train station noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a directory, and that's part of what it would become if every bus station had its own article. Previously nominated for speedy delete per CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) - tag was removed by an article editor. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • For some reason, train stations are considered notable per WP:OUTCOMES and many AFDs in the past. Hopefully WP:CCC on that consensus and Delete as nn train station with no independent, and reliable sources to back it up. See WP:RS This is a Secret account 01:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every railway station in the UK, as far as I am aware, has its own Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_railway_stations_-_A and including ones that only see about 30 passengers a day: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspley_Guise_railway_station Duke of Whitstable 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is thorough and concise, providing adequate sources to support the WP:OUTCOMES accepted consensus on notability. Alansohn 03:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first two sources aren't independent of the subject, and just trivial info, the third one is borderline spam, how is that adequate This is a Secret account 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update I have added a fourth reference.--MrFishGo Fish 16:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: If this station article is just like other articles that only have one paragraph about them, how does that keep Wikipedia from becoming a directory? It would seem to make more sense to combine these into regional articles that list or summarize the stations, and call out particularly notable examples (largest ridership, smallest ridership, historical significance, etc.) without having to include them all. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Notable because it is the center of public transportation in Corning. Now has sufficient sources.--MrFishGo Fish 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't really care about old statistics. This train station isn't notable. It is just there. - Rjd0060 05:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a transportation center of the north Central Valley (California) that's also a Greyhound station as well as a hub for many local routes. --Oakshade 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade. Railway stations make up nodes of the transportation infrastructure. Paper encyclopedias have articles about railway stations smaller than this (Hallingskeid for example). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But what is it about those train stations that makes them noteworthy? Is there some historical significance to their existence? Some statistic that makes them stand out? Do these paper encyclopedias list every bus and train station in the country? Or do they discuss the lines (Greyhound, Amtrak, etc.) and particularly noteworthy stations? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing WP to paper is not an actionable argument for deletion (or for inclusion, for that matter). I will concede that the article as it stands now includes very little to assert the subject's notability; however, looking at the photo on the article, I see railroad tracks in the background, so it seems likely to me that this station may have been originally built by a railroad to directly serve passenger trains on that track. I haven't found information in my own reference library yet, so I can't verify this theory right now. Slambo (Speak) 11:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • According to unreferenced material that used to be in this article before I removed it, the station was never a train station--it was built in 1998 as a bus station. However, it was built next to train tracks in the hope that the San Joaquins would someday be extended to serve this station. In summary, it was never a train station, but it may become one in the future.--MrFishGo Fish 16:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sorry but this is just a small station. Definitely not notable. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this isn't an actual train station since no scheduled passenger trains stop there. Amtrak utilizes this transportation center for several of their Thruway Motorcoaches. --Oakshade 16:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no claim of notability. JJL 18:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notification left at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations. Slambo (Speak) 12:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade and Sjakkalle. Furthermore, notability is not and never has been a criteria for deletion. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But issue with sources is one of the major concerns, and no one met that concern yet. This is a Secret account 16:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SNOW that this will be anything other than no-consensus, it seems Duke of Whitstable 22:35, 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 Speedy Delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Jay Scrozzari[edit]

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

Short article tagged for notability since March 2007, created by himself, linking his band. Probably a candidate for speedy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:38, 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 — Caknuck 07:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Films about Yugoslavia Revolution[edit]

Films about Yugoslavia Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an article about Yugoslavian Revolution films, but a mis-named article about Underground (film) (which was probably about the Yugoslavian Revolution). Even if this were a list of films about the Yugoslavian Revolution, it would still be too specific a topic to cover on its own. But as it stands, there's no use for it. Masaruemoto 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom. This film is covered well enough in its own article. - Rjd0060 05:11, 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 deleted by User:Merope (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7)...). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fashionably Laid[edit]

DJ Fashionably Laid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short article on an Icelandic DJ who hosts an electro night. Tagged for notability since 1 March 2007. Article makes claims of coolness and awesome popularity without any supporting footnotes. Unknown if an Icelandic DJ can be notable - but an exact phrase match search only picked up 28 ghits, many from Wikipedia mirrors. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Michaelbusch 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of being unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. --SesameballTalk 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, and it was created in 2004 which should be more than enough time and I couldn't find any either. Fails notability guidelines.--Sandahl 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD#A7. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:05, 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, V/RS. Daniel 04:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Recon Commando[edit]

Advanced Recon Commando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, no citations to reliable third-party sources, entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for the same reason:

  • Merge: And delete. Add whatever important info (if there is any) into the appropriate Star Wars article. - Rjd0060 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both No reliable sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:05, 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 --JForget 03:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Famous lynchings[edit]

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

Useless "list" (only two names). Subjective title ("Famous"), and merging to Lynching in the United States wouldn't make sense because not all lynchings have happened in the United States. Masaruemoto 01:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --SesameballTalk 01:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Lynching. Nothing here that isn't already in Lynching in the United States. Clarityfiend 01:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No merge, no redirect. It's as bad as making a list of "famous concentration camp deaths" and a link to Anne Frank. No victim of a lynching ever thought to himself, "I'm going to be famous." Mandsford 03:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Mandsford. Delete it, nothing more, nothing less. - Rjd0060 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Famous" is subjective. Wikipedia already has Lynching. Doczilla 09:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Clarityfiend. MatthewYeager 12:36, 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. Most of the pertinent information is already at Huddersfield_Town_F.C.#Supporter_culture, so no need for a merge. Neil ☎ 17:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huddersfield Town F.C. - Supporter culture[edit]

Huddersfield Town F.C. - Supporter culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is already an Athletic Supporter culture section in the main article, this page should be deleted. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't use the word "cruft" very often, but this--right down to the song lyrics(!!!)--is cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above (this article is the definition of cruft!). - Rjd0060 05:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into current section Supporter culture within the main article. alone i feel this article lacks WP:RS, but some of this information (like the history of the team song) may belong within Huddersfield_Town_F.C.. I'll merge it if no rep from WikiProject Football appears. MatthewYeager 12:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into current section Supporter culture as above. Da-rb 22:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I wouldn't even merge half of this stuff. Is it really encyclopedic to list a few famous fans and a couple of songs fans sing on the terraces? Maybe mention on the likes of Patrick Stewart's entry he's a Huddersfield fan but that's as far as I'd go. Peanut4 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - celebrity name-dropping and blatant original research (so much so that I decline to support calls for Merge). Ref (chew)(do) 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Decoratrix 03:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge -those outside the UK should bear in mind that there are whole books written on the rich supporter culture of english soccer clubs - needs to be tidied though. The original article is only 64kb so no problemo...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - who is outside the UK? Not me, and I still say delete, for the reasons I have stated. Let the "rich supporter culture" stay in the whole books, and leave Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, not a trivia magazine. And what's the size of the article got to do with it? We're not talking server bandwidth here. Ref (chew)(do) 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply looks to me as if this "rich culture" consists of naming six people who like the team and reproducing the lyrics to two songs sung at games. This just isn't a subject for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - actually this is better sourced than most such articles. If it is causing angst I have no problem with a merge back though the present structure is neater. However, I would argue that it is encyclopaedic - supporters are as much a component part of any professional sporting club as, for example, the players. BlueValour 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I completely agree with what BlueValour says. It shows the supporter culture of a club who might not be as well known unlike Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United. JRRobinson 19:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Six references about name-dropped celebrities and one about a song? How is that "better sourced" to any useful degree? Famous supporters belong in main club articles (see Sheffield United F.C. for instance). I repeat my opinion that it is basically blatant original research and does not warrant a separate article. Added to which, individual or collective (non-celebrity) supporters are non-notable when compared to individual players, managers, etc., and it is wrong to encourage this kind of self-importance. In the end, the players are the entertainment, not those who come to watch them. Ref (chew)(do) 20:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passionate arguments don't change the facts that the topic is covered in the main article and that there are no sources demonstrating enough notability for a stand-alone page. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and please remove that notable supporters list, whose low notability was already discussed earlier. --Angelo 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. --Tikiwont 10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comixtalk[edit]

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

This should not be a standalone article since it literally has no content. I think it should be deleted. But the information can also merge to webcomix Chris! ct 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't assert notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-read the article, particularly the first sentence which states Comixtalk was the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics. You may not believe that makes the publication notable, but that is not the same as stating that it does not assert notability. It is helpful to the debate for people to make a reasoned argument stating their opinion. Please explain why you do not believe being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics" is a fact worthy of note. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've removed the unsourced, incorrect claim of being the "first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Webcomics have been around since the early 90s, and it didn't take like a decade for someone to make a website about them. --Dragonfiend 13:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A1 or A7, take your pick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither apply, and I'm worried a user of such long standing would believe they do. The opening sentence both contextualises and makes a claim of importance. Hiding Talk 09:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) stricken per Dragonfiend, with my sincere apologies to Andrew.[reply]
      • If I'm reading the time stamps right, you're worried that such a long standing user can't see the context and claim of notability in an article that reads simply "Comixtalk is a website devoted to webcomix." --Dragonfiend 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad. Wasn't my first mistake, won't be my last. Keep. It's important to the field of webcomics. At worst, merge and redirect to Webcomics for the time being, but there is certainly no need to delete. There exists on Wikipedia far worse articles than this, and I know we don't count that as an argument, but more fool us. Our policies and guidelines don't dictate that we delete anything we don't have to, so let's not delete this when we have other options open to us. Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HANGON This article was started today as an outgrowth of a discussion at another AfD about a comic artist, where Comixtalk was being evaluated as a viable source. I'm not a comic person (maybe funny looking though), but I think this will bear out to be a notable topic, if we do some research. Why not hold on for a day or two and see what happens. Please! --Kevin Murray 04:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it used to be called Comixpedia. I haven't read them, but it turns up a few pages on google news.[45]. - Peregrine Fisher 04:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that they are using the name comixpedia for the magazine and other uses. It is time consuming to research since my searches seem to yield mostly their site. I've asked for help from the comix project. --Kevin Murray 05:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Now that the article was started "yesterday", per nom (not suitable for a standalone article). - Rjd0060 05:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RJD, no need to be "clever". "Yesterday" and "today" are relative to the time zones. Please assume good faith, we are all part of the same WP team, which you so recently joined. --Kevin Murray 05:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are acting in bad faith by bringing up the fact that this user recently joining Wikipedia.Chris! ct 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Chris you are entitled to express your opinion. But my opinion is that (A) his comment was snippy at best, and (B) people should get some experience at WP before evaluating other editor's work through AfD. Personally I think IP users should be blocked, and that there should be a waiting period after registration to learn the ropes before diving into decision making. Where else in the world do people walk in off the streets and jump into evaluating and administering policy. This is a topic for another area, but you expressed your opinion, now you have mine. --Kevin Murray 00:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe users should first have to demonstrate that they understand Wikipedia policies. I, who has only been a registered user for about 3 months, have demonstrated my understanding of WP policy in my 7,000+ edits in that short time. Since we are pointing out irrelevant things here, you have been here for over a year and have just over 8,000 edits which could' show a lack of "experience" and understanding/knowledge of policy. All in a matter of opinoin, of course. Now, this "discussion" should obviously not be taking place on an AfD page, however I felt the need to explain myself per the above comments. Any more comments about this should be directed to my talk page. - Rjd0060 16:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that a huge edit count demonstrates understanding, but it sure demonstrates a lot of energy and dedication to the project. We all make our contributions as we can and in different ways. I see you as a valuable exception to my experience with newer editors involved in policy etc. Still, I think that we all need to treat AfD as a bit less routine, and show some respect and compassion. Remember, that although there is a lot of annoying spam being created here, you are frequently passing judgment on other people's hard work, and a subject that could be important to them though silly to you. Best of luck and Cheers! --Kevin Murray 18:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Comixtalk was formerly Comixpedia, a site which is being used as a source by scholars. [46] It is also mentioned in the book The Education of a Comics Artist. The site is also discussed in this Spanish article, [47] as being authoritative with regards independent webcomics. Hiding Talk 11:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This namechange apparently only 2 months old, seems it was done to create a distinction between the new ownership wiki comixpedia.org, and the journalistic former comixpedia.com.[48] It is the latter that receives mention in RS such as Wired[49][50], Publishers Weekly[51], to El Pais[52], and I don't believe it is custom to scrutinize notability simply after a name change. MURGH disc. 11:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In regards to whether we ought to 'scrutinize notability simply after a name change', note that this was already deleted before the name change. --Dragonfiend 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't aware but that AfD could stand some scrutiny too ;-) Even so, the world has spun some since and WP:WEB has evolved. MURGH disc. 14:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comixpedia/Comixtalk is a project from several notable webcomics artists, and is worth maintaining coverage on. Phil Sandifer 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? All I see so far are the briefest of "mentions" in articles on other topics. --Dragonfiend 14:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 16:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't write a neutral article based on press releases, which probably explains why this article has been full of ridiculous weaselly-worded PR about the "webcomics community" "screaming for a centralized hub" and "the first online publication primarily focused on webcomics." Again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic? --Dragonfiend 02:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there any reason this article has to be deleted as opposed to merged somewhere where it is relevant? Hiding Talk 10:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • See above. Every encyclopedia article, whether this one or whatever merge target you might have in mind, ought to be based on reputable sources rather than non-neutral press releases. Does that answer your question? And again, is there any significant coverage from reputable sources about this topic?--Dragonfiend 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • See above, there are third party sources mentioned higher up. But you're still not entirely answering my question. Not every statement in an article has to be sourced to a 1000 page academic treatment. Do we improve Wikipedia by deleting this article, or by merging and/or redirecting it to a relevant target? Hiding Talk 10:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • When I wrote "significant," I meant something more than a single-sentence passing mention, not necessarily "a 1000 page academic treatment." If we don't have some significant coverage on this topic, then yes, I think we would likely be better off deleting this article then writing about it in an article on some other topic. I could be wrong, and am of course open to you explaining more clearly where and how you think this ought to be merged.--Dragonfiend 15:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I just want to be clear that we're agreeing on the frames of the debate here. We've got a website here that has been mentioned in mainstream media, one of the columns was repackaged as a book, it has featured artists of note and articles within it have been cited by academic works, and this discussion is about what's the best way for an encyclopedia to cover this site. Your stance is that there should be no mention of the site across Wikipedia. Am I reading you right? Hiding Talk 10:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No, since we all seem to agree that only passing mentions of this site are made in reputable sources, then I see no reason why passing mentions of this site can't be made on Wikipedia. For example, one can currently find many passing mentions of this site by typing "Comixpedia" into Wikipedia's search box and hitting the search button; the first few of those results I've looked at seem fine. What I don't want to see is this topic given undue weight compared to other such web sites and I don't want to see this site's ridiculous press release claims being put into other articles. --Dragonfiend 14:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Um, regarding undue weight, with which websites would you say this site is comparable? Hiding Talk 21:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • We could probably compare it to other special interest online news site topics with far more significant coverage from reputable sources like BuzzFlash or Nick Nunziata. --Dragonfiend 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                        • So we need to look at why afd is failing to apply guidance and policies with regards these articles then, don't we. It seems a lot of people are far too quick to delete. I can't quite think of how a list would work, but there needs to be some way we can merge pertinent information to parent articles and trun articles into redirects to leave our readers informed. Would you agree? Hiding Talk 09:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. If it can not be improved within a reasonable time, let's consider merging. --Kevin Murray 16:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it appears to be a valuable resource for the press (see also) and, while it was created with only a sentence it has bulked up since and it should be able to grow and prove notability. Give this a month or two and we'll see how it looks then - if it is still poor then it should be put up for deletion then. (Emperor 17:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Give the guy a chance! Maybe he had limited time online or had to check sources or had to go to work. Not everyone on the planet spends 25 hours a day on the web at Wikpedia. Even if he doesn't come back for a day or three, someone else can improve the article. Agree with above comments that it's notable enough to keep. I would like to see some mention of connection with Comixpedia, and why the redirect from such. CFLeon 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's also worth noting that one of the columns on Comixpedia, which became Comixtalk, was T Campbell's history of Webcomics, a column subsequently rewritten as a book.[53] This is enough to meet criterion 3 of WP:WEB: The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Hiding Talk 14:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article just started, so it's premature to delete. And it looks like it might be possible to find secondary sources that can be used. T. Campbell's publication should definitely be mention in this article, since it does represent website content that's been printed. Can anyone find sources that mention Comixpedia when discussing History of Webcomics? Buspar 07:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable. Deletion is premature. Article needs improvement, not elimination. Doczilla 10:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it is worth, this site's Editor in Chief has a piece on their front page called Should ComixTalk have a Wikipedia Entry? Deletion Debate Underway.... Again!. In it, they write that "Dragonfiend still has a thing for deleting it (I think s/he led the charge on deleting the original Comixpedia entry actually)." It's amazingly innacurate to be suggesting that I lead the charge on the previous deletion discussion when I was the absolute last person to join the discussion, but since I see that they are writing about me, including this fine piece where contributors call me a "rotten bitch," "unredeemable monster," "thought criminal," "Book burner," and "Enemy of human knowledge," then the closing admin needs to weigh my comments regarding the quality of sources for this topic vs. my own Conflict of interest. --Dragonfiend 14:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sad to see you receiving this abuse. I don't see any COI on your part. You've expressed legitimate concern with which I may disagree, but I agree with your right to express the opinion here. Please just regard the source and their misunderstanding of our processes. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 15:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One clarification: Xavier himself did not use those terms to describe you, the people commenting on his article did. It's not the ComixTalk editorial board calling you those names, but its readers. Important difference. I do agree that your comments would clearly suffer from some bias as a result, just as any user wouldn't be neutral to a site whose users called him names. Buspar 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. So, no, they're not just "readers" or "users." As far as I can tell their Editor in Chief hasn't written anything calling me a "rotten bitch;" he just attributes things to me that I haven't done and provides a forum for his contributors to call me a "rotten bitch." --Dragonfiend 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check of the person who specifically called you a "rotten bitch" (Rob Balder) and he does not appear to be anything more than a blogger on ComixTalk (any member can blog on ComixTalk; contributors are those who write for the magazine portion). If you read further on in the thread, Xaiver did tell him to remain civil and that his language was out of line. ComixTalk is mainly aimed to webcomic creators, and because you have a strong negative reputation among many webcomic creators (Kris Straub, Josh Lesnick, Howard Taylor, etc.), you are unlikely to be discussed in a neutral fashion by ComixTalk's audience. This is similar to when Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears are discussed at various news sites - they attract negative commentary for their actions and even some reporters can't help sniping at them on their news shows. But that doesn't affect the quality of the other articles posted, just as a news maker making sarcastic remarks on Spears or Lohan makes them less of a journalist. (Inaccuracies in Xavier's initial post, on the other hand, do make him less of a journalist, but don't necessarily impact notability, just reliability.) Buspar 06:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, again, it's actually exactly who I said it was: Some of ComixTalk's contributors. That person who specifically called me a "rotten bitch" is listed on http://comixtalk.com/magazine_contributors. Then again maybe you're right and they are so unreliable they can't even get ther own list of contributors correct. --Dragonfiend 06:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot about that list (his account doesn't list any actual contributions, which is why I thought he was just a blogger). Still, this goes back to my newscasters example with Britney Spears: just because a newscaster makes jokes at Britney's expense, they're still a reporter and the rest of the content on their program doesn't somehow become less informative. And in this case, it wasn't Balder who wrote the original post, so he wasn't acting as a contributor, just a reader - a reader whose actions Xerexes himself said was not within the proper civility guidelines of ComixTalk. You'd have a stronger argument for defamation if Balder had published an article in the magazine using those phrases, meaning the editors had taciturnly "endorsed" such language by allowing them to be printed. But there's clear evidence Xerexes doesn't see name-calling as something people should do on his site, even if he doesn't necessarily like the person being attacked. Buspar 06:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging your mistake regarding whether it was a Comixtalk contributor who called me a "rotten bitch" on Comixtalk. --Dragonfiend 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed: Xerexes himself has rebutted your comments. You can read ComixTalk's official response to you here. He clarifies that that bloggers and contributors aren't the same on ComixTalk and addresses the other points you raised. Buspar 06:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he just rebutted my comments when he pointed out how I "reference a thread that is a number of years old" when in fact I referenced a thread from March 4th, 2007. --Dragonfiend 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Comixpedia or Comixtalk, whichever is most popular, is a project from several notable satire artists. So, worth keeping in my opinion, coverage of this sort of thing is important. Rudget zŋ 16:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article shows huge improvement since this CFD got started and is noticable within the context of webcomics if its claims of being the first true publication devoted to discussing webcomics can be verified. --Martin Wisse 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article, though it certainly needs more meat on it. A section discussing the birth of T Campbell's book from that series of Comixpedia articles would be a big boon. Putting it up for deletion a day after creation defies logic; why have stub language that encourages users to add content if we prefer to delete articles quickly? Maybe we should change the stub template to read, "This comic-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by purging it before anyone else notices."Ig8887 21:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "no content" argument in the nominator's argument is no longer true. The article asserts notability and has at least one major publication to prove it (History of Webcomics). 136.142.101.135 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — Caknuck 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lekh Tandon[edit]

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

unsourced blp with minimal context, no indication that he's notable or covered significantly in 3rd party reliable sources; if something cannot be found we should delete this. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep his IMDB entry shows a four-decade career with 14 films directed and 1 award. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. Does need some work, but the article is only a couple days old. - Rjd0060 05:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable -- a simple Google News Archive search turns up 50+ news items including this article about him in The Hindu, one of India's largest newspapers:
Tandon has directed a number of notable movies which Wikipedia articles; he also won a Filmfare Award, which is a big deal in India. I have rewritten the article into a better referenced, somewhat larger stub. --A. B. (talk) 07:28, 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 Withdrawn. Members of state legislatures are notable - the jury is still out for mayors of cities with 97k people. Carlossuarez46 02:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Reichert[edit]

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

Delete another unsourced one-line blp of another mayor of Macon, Georgia Carlossuarez46 00:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not assert notability. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This guy just got elected, and I mean just... as in, today. Plenty of news coverage, obviously. It's hard to say exactly where the bar of notability lies with regard to mayors, but Macon is not a small town by any means, with a population of nearly half a million. I'm going to say keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The population of the city proper is just under 100,000. However, the urban area (pretty much the geographic area that uses "Macon, GA" as part of its mailing address) is just under 380,000 and the metro area is just under 480,000. (This is according to the WP article on Macon). The Census Bureau's American Community Survey in 2003 puts the "household population" at 325,000.[54]. LaMenta3 01:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably only those in the city limits have electorship rights on who will be the mayor of Macon, GA. Carlossuarez46 02:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, short and unsourced are surmountable problems and are not reasons for deletion. The question is not, "Is the article sourced?" But rather, "Could the article be sourced?" If the answer to the latter is 'yes,' then sourcing cannot be a reason for deletion. Article length is NEVER a reason for deletion. Further, Macon is a town that is significant both to Georgia and American history, and it has a significant impact on the southern economy. Population aside (I don't even know what it is these days, and it differs whether you count the suburbs outside of the city proper), that makes the town significant enough to have its past and present leaders be notable. LaMenta3 01:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor of a reasonably significant city, former member of the Georgia Legislative Assembly, and a fair bit of media coverage (he won 96% of the mayoral vote, but in an election with a very small turnout). Hal peridol 01:52, 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 — Caknuck 07:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Town Mall[edit]

East Town Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Wisconsin, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Far too small of a mall to contain much verifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete just a minor shopping center, the "mall" in the name is misleading This is a Secret account 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable. - Rjd0060 05:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fail WP:N, could not establish WP:RS. MatthewYeager 07:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep:Only other shopping mall in Green Bay besides Bay Park Square since Washington Commons' closing last year. East Town is set to be remodeling next year. This mall is also unique to Wisconsin for looking like a strip mall on the outside. This mall is NOT failing. I went inside today. It may not be notable, but it IS unique to this area. The area in which it is located is expanding so it may too be expanding in the years to come. Have I made myself clear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge1987 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like a strip mall because it is a strip mall This is a Secret account 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a climate controlled indoor shopping mall/outdoor strip mall hybrid. Removing this article is just as pointless as removing the article about the Valley Fair Shopping Center in neighboring Appleton. If you make articles on all Green Bay neighborhoods (Lombardi, Preble, Navarino, etc.), please merge this article into one of them. It is more than a than just a strip mall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge1987 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 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 Delete. --Tikiwont 10:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsacred Hearts[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC notability guideline; article cites few to no third-party sources; label (Serious Business Records) has been deemed non-notable. Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:23, 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 — Caknuck 07:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abunaicon[edit]

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

A previous PROD was contested. There are no secondary sources mentioned to indicate notability. I haven't found any reliable sources on the subject via a Google search either. Martijn Hoekstra 00:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable. Fee Fi Foe Fum 00:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable and no sources. Reads like an advertisement. - Rjd0060 05:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: i found the official site for this event.MatthewYeager 07:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • End Deletion: It is notable since the convention exists for 4 years now, + I am a staff member of this convention organizing it. As you might have tried to look more carefully at the topic, you will found that the data on the wikipedia correspondents to the data on the official website located at http://www.abunaicon.nl/ and http://www.stichtingabunai.nl/ . Power2All 09:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Power2All (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Are there secondary sources about this convention available (per our Reliable Sources policy? --Goobergunch|? 11:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Yes, you can find information regarding AbunaiCon at AniWay, the official anime/manga magazine in Holland (the only one that is). See URL: www.aniway.nl as they promote themselfs also on AbunaiCon and AnimeCon. Heck, whole google is full with AbunaiCon source information. If you still think this is not good enough, you can even contact the Japanese Ambase in Holland, since we receive quiet some information from them. Happy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.94.150 (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81.175.94.150 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Rjd0060 16:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local notability? The fact is, the article fails to demonstrate notability, whether it is or not (however I believe it is not). - Rjd0060 16:06, 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.

Aspartmene[edit]

The result was Speedily deleted as WP:CSD#G1 - patent nonsense. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspecting a hoax, article! VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 07:12, 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 — Caknuck 07:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gakuen Sugar Star[edit]

Gakuen Sugar Star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

First issue, fails WP:Crystal VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [The are related to previous]:

Haru Kotobakanata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nica Bianca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. "It was the first manga chapter she done and now that many of her mates are reading it, she continue on writing her first manga." --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article makes no claim to notability, and a Google search for the subject turns up nothing. Neranei (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable. No non-trivial coverage of subject by reliable, third-party published sources. -- Satori Son 18:49, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8&oldid=1116721521"