Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

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 delete without prejudice against recreation. For those who argue that this could be a legitimate topic (and I could see it as such), by all means write an article on the topic. However, we will not keep an essay lying around just because the essay happens to be about a notable subject that could theoretically have an encyclopedic article. As the arguments for keeping the article seem centered around the theoretically possible article rather than the article itself, I find them uncompelling. —Verrai 02:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian retirement[edit]

Gay and lesbian retirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reads like an essay, not an article. No external or intenral links. Orphaned. A few fairly spammy links at the bottom. Can't imagine that even with the best cleanup in the world it would become encyclopeadic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 00:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It doesn't quite read right, but it could, could, possibly be fixed. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Like Kornfan71, I can possibly imagine an article about the subject with proper sources but I don't think this provides even a base for such an article. Also, WP:OR, right? Pigman 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there was just a big NY Times article on it this week (Tues.?), but that doesn't make it an article. JJL 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a Gay & Lesbian article. Tiggerjay 07:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an essay not an article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rework. LGBT retirement communities are certainly notable, so perhaps the article should be repurposed to discuss such communities. The large number of sources that discuss LGBT retirement issues would appear to satisfy any notability requirements. Eddie's Teddy 03:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources that talk about LGBT retirement and communities: [1], [2], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35218]. Given the lack of legal recognition of same-sex unions throughout much of the world, including the US, an article on aging LGBT communities is an incredible benefit to Wikipedia. Eddie's Teddy 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy for the author, if he requests. Needs explicit referencing. --SmokeyJoe 09:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Retirement communities and information about senior issues are not very well covered in WP and therefore this is a WP:CSB issue, albeit one that is not under-recognized in comparison to the LGBT CSB issue! I can see this being primarily a list-oriented article with some discussion of the issue that cites to the published works. Ideally it would fit into a set of articles about special needs populations for seniors. --lquilter 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay, not an encyclopedical article, US centric. Pavel Vozenilek 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly essay in nature.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eddie'sTeddy and Lquilter. Bearian 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pretty bad article, true, but there are specific issues of concern for the LGBT community in retirement. There are issues of gays in retirement homes predominated by straights, and vice versa (There are tons of mainstream articles recently about this). It needs to be fixed, not deleted:

--David Shankbone 17:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an essay as expressed above. There is an article to be had under this topic perhaps, but this isn't it. Burntsauce 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we delete articles that need to be re-written, or do we re-write them? --David Shankbone 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. NYT article establishes that this is a demarcate-able subject matter of importance. Fireplace 17:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nominator's statement, "Can't imagine that even with the best cleanup in the world it would become encyclopeadic." is way over WP:NPOV. Further, with sources from New York Times, Dallas Morning News, San Francisco Chronicle and WorldNetDaily as already stated above, I find sources from L.A. Times[3], USA Today[4], The Advocate[5], AOL Money & Finance[6], Washington Post[7], ABC News[8], and American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) Magazine[9]. As was said above, we re-write, not delete. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 17:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I take on board the comments about WP:CSB - I am not sure about the lack of LGBT articles on Wikipedia, but there probably are a shortage of articles about senior citizen issues. But I don't think a series of newspaper reports on a topic du jour makes it any more encyclopediac: WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I've listed these under refs for other editors' use. Benjiboi 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. That's 14 refs added so far and no reason to believe that any effort won't quickly produce more. Subject is certainly notable and sources easily found. Article simply needs improving through regular editing per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though it definitely needs work, the subject matter certainly could make a good encyclopedic article. Right now this article seems more about aging LGBT couples than it does about LGBT retirement, but give it a chance, it was only created a week ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queerudite (talk • contribs) 02:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstarecho (talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchati[edit]

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

Not notable, orphaned, irrelevant. can you say moo? Ⓐ 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not to mention there's almost no content in it. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of how much info is currently in the article, general consensus is that villages are allowed per WP:OUTCOMES. And to be fair, the article does state that it is a stub. ARendedWinter 00:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep All villages and cities includable well-established consensus--Victor falk 01:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Towns and villages are notable regardless of size. --Oakshade 01:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the only (maybe the only) always notable categories is settled places (towns and villages). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was the only one. What might the others be?--Victor falk 06:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of any other one as general as this. There are a few other minor exceptions to the Primary Notability Criterion (for example, an otherwise non-notable company becomes instantly notable if it appears in the Fortune 500 or is used in the S&P 500 or something like that, even if the article has no other sources to expand it past a stub), but other than the settled places exception, those are few and not often needed, as most of the exceptions are otherwise notable ANYWAYS.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already listed. However it certainly could use some help with more content. Tiggerjay 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A real town/village, hence automatically notable. Nothing wrong with stubs, that's why we have stub markers. Ben W Bell talk 11:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article lacks content, but towns are,by definition, notable.jonathon 08:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to Waffle Crisp. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle boy[edit]

Waffle boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable and unencyclopediac - temporary mascot for a not particularly famous or historical product. No internal or external links to or from the article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amrik Das[edit]

Obvious hoax; page says that player has played in 2023. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could be a hoax, but it does and seems to be nonsense. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Could be a hoax"? Did you read the article? I'll give you one sentence: "Das was selected in 2017 for the first intake of the National Cricket Academy in Bangalore.[1]" What do you think of that? --Agüeybaná 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hrm....Then they go to say they have a reference for it? I wasn't aware of there being time travel at our fingertips yet....—Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 01:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am inclined to speedy delete it unless this is determined to be a known fictional character, which it doesn't seem to be. —C.Fred (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Dates in the future? Looks rather hoax-like to me. —Travistalk 01:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — wtf??? It's written in past tense, but it includes dates from the future. Once again, wtf??? --Agüeybaná 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- noting that this is by now a snowball. The dates make clear this article is wishful thinking at best. Euryalus 01:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:A3. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day's Untitled 8th Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Green Day's Untitled 8th Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It's an untitled CD that will be coming out sometime in 2008. There's no details in the article. When the CD gets released, and/or a title is given, then perhaps it can be recreated. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No info is out for the album yet- but recreate when there is. Thanks, Codelyoko193 Talk Contributions 23:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No use having this one-line article here yet....—Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CBALL. Recreate eventually. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When there's substantial info, then create the article. Pigman 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Future release albums should at LEAST have a title before they merit an article, no? WP:MUSIC should probably add something about this... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal ball-ery. These X Band's Yth studio album articles are a curse for the watcher of new album articles. tomasz. 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there is significant and ubstantial enough disagreement in relation to the deletion of the article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrorthrone[edit]

Mirrorthrone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Of Wind and Weeping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carriers of Dust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

One man band that does not meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Also nominated are the band's two albums. Delete as nom. Michael Greiner 23:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: Non-notable band, albums. - Rjd0060 00:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up and coming band, fairly well known in the metal underground. *Keep all Scipo 03:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since when are webzines not reliable? And which one is a forum? ♫ Cricket02 02:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Userfy, moved to User:Aaron1509/Causal Explanation and Research Design. There are only 747 unique Ghits using the search terms given by Victor falk, so notability is indeed a question. The user, who is a new Wikipedian, admits it's a work in progress, so moving it into Aaron1509's user space protects it from deletion (somewhat) while it's improved. When it's fully fleshed out, it can be moved back into the mainspace. KrakatoaKatie 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causal Explanation and Research Design[edit]

Causal Explanation and Research Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm really not sure what this is supposed to be. I would have marked it as a nocontext speedy, but I feel like I'm missing something here. JuJube 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose "a work in progress" isn't acceptable. I'm trying to add a new article for something im interested in. Given the right amount of time i think this article will be useful to others with an interest in these areas. what can i do to keep this from being deleted? Aaron1509 23:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I'm kinda neutral on this one. It can have good info, but at the same time, it does have some info that I think could be cut. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Has some good (encyclopedic) info, which is referenced. Could use some work, but keep for now. - Rjd0060 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it's kept, the article title should be changed to something more descriptive. JuJube 00:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I definitely agree with that. I'll try and come up with something, if kept. - Rjd0060 00:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: [10]--Victor falk 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify, let the work continue, and eventually remerge with the main article namespace if appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Natomas Unified School District with no merge as it is basically just a list of schools with no descriptions whatsoever.--JForget 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bannon Creek Elementary School[edit]

Bannon Creek Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm unsure of the notability of this school. SolidPlaid 22:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as nominator. SolidPlaid 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only thing that could make this school notable is the fact it has a GATE program, but the GATE program doesn't even have an article so I guess thats NN either.- Rjd0060 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD#A7 "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 03:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted by User:Academic Challenger. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Horne[edit]

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

Not notable at the moment, and in any case unreferenced. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking content and references. - PMDrive1061 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as violating WP:MUSIC. Bearian 17:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrival of the Fimbul Winter[edit]

The Arrival of the Fimbul Winter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A self-released demo album on tape. No sources. Not that notable a band, either. It's already on the Metal Archives, which is a great place for it. Cruftbane 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as non-notable. Thanks, Codelyoko193 TalkSign here 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fails WP:MUSIC: "demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." The release is too limited and the content too brief to represent any enduring contribution to the band's musical history. It was also re-released in full as part of Versus the World (album) and the musical content is adequately covered on that page. Euryalus 01:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Euryalus. Not opposed to merging to the band's page. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SuccessTech Academy shooting, obviously, per the Wikipedia:Don't overreact policy. -Splash - tk 22:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Coon[edit]

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

Asa Coon was the gunman in the SuccessTech Academy shooting. The article was tagged for speedy deletion citing BLP concerns (I removed the CSD template), which is inappropriate for a two reasons: 1) The subject is no longer living and 2) BLP violations are not a CSD criterion. As more information becomes available, I suspect the article will contain more content than it currently does (two sentences). As the subject is only notable for this shooting, I don't think we really need an article on him. Perhaps a merge or a redirect are in order. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While school shootings are terrible, nobody was even seriously injured (except for this kid) and he is not notable for anything else (generally, someone doesn't get an article if there notability is only for one thing). Mention him on the page for the shooting and that is enough. TJ Spyke 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:BLP1E. The person died recently, but I am pretty sure that BLP1E still applies, as well as the general principles of WP:BLP policy. We should not be having articles for 14-year-old children who recently committed suicide, even under these tragic circumstances. Burntsauce 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's not confirmed whether he killed himself or if the police killed him. TJ Spyke 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is confirmed, by the Associated Press, and I really don't see how that is relevant or why you're bringing it up. Burntsauce 22:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect article to SuccessTech Academy shooting. 98.198.102.133 22:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect article. -- dhp1080 (u·t·c) 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 5 of Lexington and Richland Counties--JForget 00:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

River Springs Elementary School[edit]

River Springs Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that while high schools are usually kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to the school district Lexington & Richland County School District Five--JForget 00:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Pointe Elementary School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that while high schools are usually kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete then redirect to its district. There are on the order of 100,000 elementary schools in the US alone. SolidPlaid 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD#A7 "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Victor falk. Pigman 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to [Lexington & Richland County School District Five]] as with previous noms. A7 does not apply to schools. Silensor 04:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 18:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Silensor and per WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was a Redirect Lexington & Richland County School District Five--JForget 00:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harbison West Elementary School[edit]

Harbison West Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that while high schools are usually kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lexington & Richland County School District Five --JForget 00:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H. E. Corley Elementary School[edit]

H. E. Corley Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, and WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that while high schools are usually kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lexington & Richland County School District Five--JForget 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballentine Elementary School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, and WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that while high schools are usually kept, middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete then redirect to its district. There are on the order of 100,000 elementary schools in the US alone. SolidPlaid 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD#A7 "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 03:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Victor falk. Pigman 03:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lexington & Richland County School District Five as per the previous noms for schools in the same district. A7 does not apply to schools. Silensor 04:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't a school an organisation?--Victor falk 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could look at it like that, I guess. I think school discussions are better served in AfD. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect seems like the sensible thing to do, per Silensor and WP:REDIRECT as well. RFerreira 20:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete or otherwise delete. A7 applies to all schools, as either organizations or companies. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both as non-notable. The public company doesn't have an article but one can be created by someone. KrakatoaKatie 05:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Van Dyke III[edit]

Peter Van Dyke III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced blp of a nn ceo, and his nn holding company.

I am also nominating

Carlossuarez46 22:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them both. He certainly doesn't assert any notability or meet WP:BIO, so the only possible place for his information would be within the company's. Everything about the company's product is "blue-sky" -- they've announced they're developing an aircraft. I suggest the company's product falls under WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and it has no other notability. Now, if and when the product comes out, and it meets these expectations and specifications, it might be very notable indeed, in which case someone will write an article about it then. Accounting4Taste 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bio - there is some information on Van Dyke here, but I can't find much else, and this does not appear to meet notability standards. Delete the company as well, or at least rename to Three Sixty Inc., which seems to have recently acquired Integrity Aircraft Holdings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal peridol (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It They recently were acquired by Three Sixty, Inc. a public company with plenty of history to it and it seems to be of some interest moving forward, more information needs to be put on the refrence page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelfoley2007 (talk • contribs)

— Axelfoley2007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of drumming games[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion for a number of reasons, primarily that WP:NOT a directory, and given the strong lack of encyclopedic context here, standard categories will more than suffice. Burntsauce 21:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with, or at least mention notable games in the Music video games, and then delete. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question My nomination raises the point that this article should be deleted because categories would do a better job. What is your response to that? Burntsauce 22:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would appear that Category:Drumming video games already exists (would have linked, but for some reason it doesn't show up) :) This article serves no purpose anymore. Lists are appropriate in certain circumstances, but I am generally in favor of categs instead of lists. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category is the way to go here. I would hate to see a redlinked drumming game on a list, that would be like seeing a video golf game list with blue and red members. Oh God now I have to look... SolidPlaid 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lists by their very nature can only be accurate if they are complete. They can only hope to be complete if they are very narrow in scope. The only lists that could possibly work on wikipedia are lists for which there are a finite amount of known members (like lists of episodes of a TV series, for example). This is nowhere near such a list. Categories do a much better job. adavidw 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons above. Tiggerjay 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Music video games per J-ſtanTalkContribs Randomized lists are unencyclopedic. Wisdom89 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a useless list, categories are the best way to go here. RFerreira 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another useless list. Do add all of the games in this article to Category:Drumming video games though. Knowitall 10:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 User:Sam Blacketer. Non-admin closure. Euryalus 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wopalicious[edit]

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

nn dj - has 239 google hits OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio (G12).  But|seriously|folks  07:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Boudreau[edit]

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

Reads something like a rambling ad. Pretty much a list of achievements. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep unless copyvio shown. "A list of achievements" says the article asserts notability, so the nominator hasn't given any reason for deletion. If it reads lousy, wikify and copyedit. VivianDarkbloom 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected, seeing no objections. Non-admin closure. shoy 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen[edit]

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

Disambiguation page containing only two senses of the word, and one sense is not in accordance with naming convention Bsherr 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This to to provide a fuller explanation for deletion of this disambiguation page. The disambiguation page "The Queen" consturcts the phrase in two senses: (1) third person reference to a female monarch, and (2) the so-named motion picture The Queen (film).

In the first sense, use of the phrase in context would not include capitalization of the article--"the Queen" and not "The Queen". Therefore, an entry in this sense of the phrase should properly be named "Queen" and not "The Queen", in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name).

The second sense, in context, would inclue a capitalized article--in the movie "The Queen"--and is proper under naming conventions.

There are no other senses of this word included in the disambiguation page here proposed for deletion.

The problem with maintianing this disambiguation page is that it invites (and its history and current form indicate) redundancy, in the first sense of usage, with Queen, a disambiguation page that is properly named in this sense of the phrase in accordance with the naming convention. Efforts to maintain this article to do only (1) refer to Queen and (2) refer to The Queen (film) have not been able to be maintained due to unawareness of this intent and of the naming conventions.

I therefore propose: (1) deletion of this disambiguation page (2) installation of a redirect to the film page "The Queen" (3) preserving the properly executed link to the disambiguation page Queen on The Queen (film) Bsherr 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voxel World[edit]

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

Probably non notable piece of software (less than 400 google hits) - no RS, to establish notability OSbornarfcontributionatoration 21:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alright. Delete the article then. Sorry for the inconvenience that I caused. --89.215.65.176 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Flight Airways[edit]

American Flight Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online organization; Google search reveals no references outside virtual airline directories. Canwolf 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I typed it inot google and the first one up was AFA's home page. Thats where all the information came from. ArmoredPersonel 21:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Virtual Airlines has over 300 active pilots and is an active FS community, worthy to be mentioned on wikipedia. Tsnwrangler 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as spam; however, the idea is encyclopedic so perhaps an article on virtual airlines would be appropriate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 07:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if independent secondary sources are not provided, as per Wikipedia:Notability. The article could be considered spam. --SmokeyJoe 09:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every bit of information is from AFA's site. Its from their operation manual, fleet page, and other tabs on their site. Look them up why don't you. ArmoredPersonel 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to look at Wikipedia's guidelines concerning articles on corporations and organizations. Also look at the guidelines regarding websites, notability and reliable sources. --Richard 23:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the approval from the CEO and founder of AFA to make this page. He allowed me to use most if not all of the info. He said it didn't bother him if I copied and pasted the info (which I didn't). Please don't delete this page. ArmoredPersonel 22:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is susceptible to being considered spam advertising by the company. This means that you need to prove that independent sources have written about this company, about what it does. Ask the CEO for some published independent reviews of his company, and then re-write the article based on the reviews. You can use the company website to source facts, but you must have at least one or two independent sources to demonstrate notability. --SmokeyJoe 00:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete as spam. Pascal.Tesson 11:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pikluk[edit]

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

most likely nn, potential SPA/COI OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (and it reads like an ad OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American fashion designers[edit]

List of Jewish American fashion designers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just another list of a non-notable intersection of characteristics. I'm not disputing that it's well-sourced and the people on it are probably notable, simply the list concept is not. Stifle (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unencyclopedic intersection. SolidPlaid 22:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and solid fashion artefact.--Victor falk 03:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A category could serve this function in the unlikely event that people felt that it makes a difference whether a fashion designer is American and Jewish. This is one of many odd lists under the umbrella Lists of American Jews (not a list, but "lists"), such as List of Jewish American linguists. While I'm sure these were created once with good intentions, the idea that Jewish linguists should be segregated in a different area of your encylopedia from other linguists is archaic. Mandsford 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Agree with Mansford. All these lists are overbroad and provide no useful information connecting all the people together except for their parent's (or in some case's grandparent's) religious and cultural background. Bulldog123 20:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, this is unnecessary and can be handled through the appropriate intersection of categories. RFerreira 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as a stub per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian 19:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoor activity[edit]

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

I see no point in this article's continued existence. It's been tagged for cleanup for five months now with no particular improvement, and while it's theoretically improvable (cultural attitudes to outdoor pursuits etc) I don't really see any particular point to it. As the IP says on the talk page, this article is unnecessary in its present form; it doesn't really say anything that isn't obvious from combining the dicdefs of "outdoors" and "activity". — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nominator. The article is completely unsourced, has been for months, and does nothing but state the absolute obvious. Burntsauce 20:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gut & stub Not much content here, but it's a potentially encyclopedic article. Replanting stubs is a great outdoor activity--Victor falk 03:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is now gutted.--Victor falk 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Borst[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion as I am unable to verify any of the information within the two sentences that make up this article, other than the fact he appeared in a couple of skateboard videos. Sources were requested sixteen months ago back in June 2006, we're now at October 2007 and nothing has turned up. If someone can provide a reliable source that confirms he was ranked number one by some sort of skating authority I will respectfully withdraw this nomination, but for now it fails WP:BLP and pretty much everything else we have. Burntsauce 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can come up with a source. I couldn't. However, there may be information offline. I wouldn't know where to look. My library doesn't carry skateboard mags from the '80's.Sethacus 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. --RaiderAspect 09:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. RFerreira 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of sources. jonathon 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - has written at least three books and works with UNESCO, meets WP:PROF. KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Caney[edit]

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

Placing for deletion because this person does not meet WP:PROF or any other biography guideline that I'm aware of, and also lacks anything in the way of reliable third party sources about the subject. Burntsauce 20:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless someone turns up more substantial evidence of notability than what's there now, I can't really see keeping it. I A7ed it before but was swayed by the argument that professors are almost always notable. I'm very disinclined to grant sweeping notability to all members of a group. To me, it feels counter to notability and reliable source guidelines to give blanket and unquestioning entries to everyone in a group. Still, I'm always open to evidence of notability if it shows up. (sorry for the little rant there.) Pigman 21:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 21:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets WP:PROF - He's a Professor of politics at one of the best regarded universities in the world for politics and his book Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory is a set text in (graduate) university courses other than his own (e.g.St andrews(google html cache), Cambrige google cache), there are plenty more). -- SiobhanHansa 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Siobhan, can you please tell me what reliable, non-trivial sources have written about Simon Caney? Most professors have published books, but that doesn't mean they automatically or easily meet WP:PROF. Quite the contrary. Burntsauce 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:PROF includes The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.; and The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course. I think the two uses of Caney's text I included above indicate both these things, and as I said, there are plenty more. Other independent academics, at well respected universities, are saying Caney's work is necessary reading for graduate level study - that's a strong endorsement of his standing. -- SiobhanHansa 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siobhan. Being published by the Oxford University Press demonstrates notability, at least among the general class of the literate. VivianDarkbloom 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The book was reviewed in The Journal of Moral Philosophy (DOI:10.1177/174046810600300109) and Perspectives on Politics (DOI:10.1017/S1537592707070636), so that's multiple reliable secondary sources. But per WP:BLP1E I'd like to see more than just that one thing about Caney to be convinced he's notable for himself. —David Eppstein 23:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy Toomim[edit]

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

Placing for deletion because this person is simply not notable enough for an encyclopedia, including this one according to our WP:BIO guidelines. It could be argued that this also fails WP:BLP as well as there are no reliable third party sources to speak of. Burntsauce 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are simply not enough reliable, third party sources, of Toomim or DJ Geki, to justify an article.--Sethacus 03:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. RFerreira 22:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PeaceNT 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckparade[edit]

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

Placing for deletion because this parade fails WP:N and is completely lacking in the reliable sources dept. We are not an advertising service for fuckparades. Burntsauce 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This video is making its way around the net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJwODowvVY. I found the wikipedia entry while trying to contextualize the video. Although the information in the entry is minimal, it provides background as to what fuckparade is. If wikipedia is to serve as the definitive encyclopedia, pages like this need to kept and improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.158.2 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A video has popped up featuring a guy they call technoviking dancing at this event. People will be looking for information on what fuckparade is. The article should be kept. --75.162.79.135 05:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comment on the AfD, yet anyway, but We are not an advertising service for fuckparades. should be added to WP:NOT, like yesterday. :) IvoShandor 20:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral hard to find sources for this most of them are in german, plus I have a feeling the term "Fuckparade" will be censored by most mainstream sources so I'm not sure how we would do a search. It seems to have plenty of coverage among the electronic/dance music crowd.Ridernyc 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not the kind of thing that'll generate English-language coverage, but it's the subject of news articles every summer in the German daily newspapers (yes, with the word "Fuckparade" in the article title, which is a nice touch), so it meets notability and WP:V requirements: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Thomjakobsen 22:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral it almost seems like an excuse to use the "F-word" repeatedly. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pity there isn't some latin name that editors can hide behind. This article satifys notability, verifiability it just has a title offensive to some. KTo288 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep extremely notable event associated with opposition to the commercialism of the Love Parade.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable event that has gained some wider notoriety. Crypticfirefly 03:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Not one German and most Europeans who've listened to any techno know haven't heard of it--Victor falk 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable event, and I have no problem with the branding, we're not censored. RFerreira 22:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SRONG KEEP!!!! what most of you people dont know(from what it looks and seems like) in europe there is no censorship. Neither on tv nor in the media period. Deleting this would be a big hit for free speech specially on the internet wich is the only place where most americans can get have eny nowdays. Just cause something is called Fuckparade is no reason to delete it. If it offends you simply dont look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedroperez420 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as notable. Bearian 14:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katia's Russian Tea Room[edit]

Katia's Russian Tea Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Suggesting deletion because the establishment fails WP:CORP and lacks reliable third party sources about the subject. Burntsauce 20:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the Zagat seem to confer notability--Victor falk 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article makes a claim to a Zagat award of some sort, but no reliable sources are provided to validate the claim. Do you have any? How many of these awards does Zagat issue to restaurants within the San Francisco area every year? As of right now, the reader has no way to verify the information presented, nor do they have any understanding of why that award should be considered notable. Both problems sway me to the delete point of view (reaffirming original position). Burntsauce 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. Keep Delete, all restaurants getting a Zagat are not automatically notable.--Victor falk 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless sources are added. The restaurant is well known in San Francisco but after looking and looking I see nothing published about it except restaurant reviews, plus one mention each in the Washington Post and Russian Life. Both of those discuss it in a travelogue based way, and would be fine sources to supplement a claim to notability but just aren't enough. Underneath it all I think this is just another restaurant. Perhaps a good, popular one, but it's not famous, influential, groundbreaking, etc....just not notable enough, unless before it's deleted someone can prove me wrong by finding and sourcing some notability.Wikidemo 17:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. If reliable sources can be provided to demonstrate notability, the nominator may strike my comments. RFerreira 22:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [18], [19], [20] and [21]. These are lenghty articles about this restaurant, that seem to meet WP:N's requirement of non-trivial coverage. Sure, restaurants often get local reviews... but these are not your average capsule review, and one is from the Washington Post, which is hardly local. --W.marsh 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Miami Sun Post September 27, 2007 is a reliable source. The four PR releases might have a total of sentence or two of article material: July 27, 2007 PR, August 13, 2007 PR, August 16, 2007 PR, and August 20, 2007 PR. MarketShift.com July 27, 2007 is a blog, not a Wikipedia reliable source. inmanwiki.com is a summary of press release material, not a Wikipedia reliable source. Also, the article was improved during the AfD to address promotional concerns. Although the SPA argue keep, no non-SPA has argued keep. It is clear that the delete reasonings reviewed the references and likelihood for other reliable source material and provide the stronger argument. -- Jreferee t/c 15:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fizber.com[edit]

Fizber.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Because there are a confusion of promotional websites reporting on this business site as "news", I'm unable to tell whether this is a legitimate and notable business. Notable for Wikipedia inclusion, that is. It doesn't help that the text is written like a press release touting its importance with a very positive POV. Pigman 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete db-spam JuJube 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pigman, I really appreciate your feedback, the article might look like a press release but I did my best to write about this site in a positive manner simply because I used this site's services and I know what I'm writing about.. Now I try to understand why the community made its decision to delete the article. I'm open to the community's suggestions on what should be added/removed from the article to make it a worthy contribution to Wikipedia.Kateh4 09:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Kateh4 (the author of the article). Keep. My google Search turned several sources: (1) MiamiSunPost.com "Flagler on Flagler ", By Helen Hill; (2) MarketingShift.com "Can Blogging Sell Your House" By John Gartner. These are not press releases, but the articles written by real people.Kateh4 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Kateh4 Note: There's also an article about Fizber.com on InmanWiki, the Real Estate Encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateh4 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — Kateh4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Good article. Lets keep it. The article has reliable third party sources about the subject. IMHO if we delete this article, the same should be done with the article about Zillow.com on Wiki. Anton777 09:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Anton777 — Anton777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a legitimate company, they have a TRUSTe sign on their site. Covetusa 10:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)covetusa — Covetusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep. very notable. The company does exist. I even found them on the Benefactors page among other companies which donated to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.128.100 (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Keep. Although they are new, it seems to be a fast-growing business, they have up to 25k unique users per month, I found it out by using the Quantcast tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.128.100 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25K unique users per month is nothing for a startup. Especially one that releases PR stuff as frequently as they do. If they are still in business in two years, then they might be notable. jonathon 16:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25K unique users per month is more than enough for such a limited niche as FSBO (the National Association of REALTORS puts the FSBO market at about 20% of homesellers). Fizber.com has a clear target in the FSBO, which is estimated to be growing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateh4 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.31.128.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:CORP, WP:WEB. Press releases are insufficient to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 12:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion about the website's notability, but as the article stands, it is a promotional; either delete or re-write (remove or re-write the "features" section). - Mike Rosoft 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to rewrite the features section in a more professional manner to make it sound less promotional. -- Kateh4 14:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Kateh4[reply]
  • Delete unless notability is reliably sourced. Not a single one of the "keep" votes legitimately addresses the deletion nomination. The article is completely unsourced. The company's own press release does not count, nor does a donation to Wikipedia. Sure it exists - that much is obvious from the website. But is it notable? That hasn't been proven, and my google search didn't find any obvious answers.Wikidemo 17:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- --Rrburke(talk) 02:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This is a very new venture. It made a PR splash, but doesn't appear to had an impact. It isn't a new way of doing anything re selling houses.jonathon 08:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the third cite is not a major cite; it's buried into the article. Bearian 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Consensus is that the article cannot meet Verifiability. Both the keep and delete reasoning agree that more sources are needed, but consensus is that there are no more sources such that the article cannot meet Verifiability. The keep arguments regarding importance/significance do not aid in determining whether the article can meet Verifiability. -- Jreferee t/c 15:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Criminal (2nd Nomination)[edit]

Mr. Criminal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Never heard of this rapper. No WP:SOURCES, very little context (not much more than a discography, still haven't heard of most of what's on there, probably fails WP:MUSIC) . Might be notable if the article can pass WP:V, although right now I'm leaning towards delete. Rackabello 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently this is a repost. Rackabello 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, except for the "never heard of" part. WP:IHEARDOFIT (or haven't) are arguments to avoid, but the verifiability issue is a serious enough problem. Burntsauce 21:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to AMG, Mr. Criminal has produced 5 albums for Thump Records, a notable label. He has also charted (though not well) on the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop charts.--Sethacus 03:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sethacus, appears to be verifiably notable per AMG with Billboard charting releases. RFerreira 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources are added to meet the verifiability policy. --Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just needs a few clean up otherwise it should be kept. West Coast Ryda 17:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as notable and verifiable, but we need more sources per WP:BLP. Bearian 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inner bone pain[edit]

Inner bone pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Described as an uncommon pain syndrome occurring in someone who suffers a physical trauma after being under mental stress for a long time. No sources offered, NORD URL at the bottom leads to the NORD website but the site does not list "inner bone pain" as a recognised condition. It gets six Google hits, mostly Wikipedia and mirrors, and searching PubMed for Dr Tyler Coles does not lead to an article that describes such a syndrome. I think this article is a hoax, and needs to be deleted. JFW | T@lk 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. Consensus is that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. Consensus is that there is more than enough reliable source material for the article. The how-to issues may be addressed through a clean-up tag. The name of the article is appropriate, as a simple search shows that the topic is called 'choking game' by the media. See, for example, Boy's death prompts 'choking game' fears. Officials won't release cause of Slinger death. Choking game seems the most likely terms by which those interested in the topic would search for the topic on Wikipedia. The name of the article might offend some, but that is no reason to delete the article and not a basis to rename the article. Merge into or with Chokehold, Erotic asphyxiation, and/or Autoerotic fatality might have been a possible outcome, but that that was not discussed sufficiently, particularly in view of the significant "choking game" reliable source material available. -- Jreferee t/c 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Choking game[edit]

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

No directly pertinent reliable sources, but plenty of how-to (the primary section is "How the choking game works" -- works?!?) about how to make yourself pass out and very likely die. Wikipedia is not a how-to, and this is essentially a form of (terrible) medical advice.

  • Delete - as nom. 1of3 20:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK keep - And by weak I mean weaker than Godzilla walking on eggshells. All the "how-to" crap has to go but this could be properly referenced and sourced. -WarthogDemon 20:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find some sources that are not how too and I think this one is a very good start [[22]]. It is from a clearly reliabe source has information about the game that is clearly not how to in nature. It also has an video link from an investogation on the program the fifth estate which is clearly a notiable and lasts over twenty minuits. The site is also from CBC News (cbc being the network the show airs on) so it is legal downlaod so there should not be any copywright conserns. 70.48.174.186 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a start though it still requires much work. -WarthogDemon 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite per the reasons below. -WarthogDemon 17:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article used to be less of a how to. Much less. There were several cases of kids dieing after playing the "game" that garnered national news attention in the States. This version shows a list of names of kids that have died from this. Each has had national news coverage. I don't see why this article should be deleted when we have articles on murder, strangulation, suicide, etc. We even have articles on suicide methods and teenage suicide. Or we have memorials such as Murder of Michelle Gardner-Quinn, LaToyia Figueroa, Sheila Bellush, etc. I know, the "this other article is here, why not this one?" arguments are weak but I have a point. Those articles can be used as research for someone looking into murders and their causes, missing people, etc. This article talks about an actual method that kids use to "get high" and some of them end up dieing from it. It could be an informative and well researched article. Also, I know this is a weak argument as well, but there are over 2 million Google hits for Choking game. There are still many active links to articles written about this fad/phenomenon/game whatever you want to call it, such as this CNN piece, this page states that "This activity has been going on for generations." and "Deaths have occurred from this activity nationwide, and in other countries around the world." This is not a localized thing. It isn't rumor. People die from this just like they do with drowning. If we eliminate or severely cut down the "how-to" info, there is plenty of information for a well referenced article. Dismas|(talk) 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article has problems, the main problem is that the entire article is cast as a 'game' when it is actually seriously misguided aberrant behaviour. However, the subject matter is an important one and must be in Wikipedia. It does need work. I would suggest that we: 1. Rename it to something more technical and less attractive such as Self asphyxiation or Recreational asphyxiation, sugestions please 2. Recast this as a medical article, 2. Retain the statistics, the description and the mechanism, reinforcing in the statistics that it kills and maims many children each year 3. Cite more sources 4. Remove the 'other names' section, confirm the real alternative names from this list by research which will reduce it to about six and then incorporate these alternative names in the main text, 5. Remove the how-tos while somehow keeping the description of behaviour. It would be irresponsible for Wikipedia not to cover this when it is a common activity that causes so much misery, we just have to cover it in a better way. Ex nihil 23:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create new article, delete this one We had a similar situation with a how-to article about how to make a bomb. As I tried to explain to the idiots who thought it was "censorship" to delete a how-to-make-a-bomb article (one of them wrote "'Kids could get hurt' is not a reason to delete"), editing is not a perfect solution, since the editing history has the prior versions. Yes, it's a notable topic. No, we don't need a step by step. I suggest create a new article (call it Choking Game instead of Choking game and then choke the shit out of this one. Mandsford 04:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I see the current state of the article as a whole as relevant, important and fairly encyclopedic, excluding some sections. It just needs some editing (quite a few articles do!), but not nearly enough to warrant deletion. Probably at least half of Wikipedia's articles could use more sources. I would strongly prefer the current name as well. Things like Self asphyxiation sound more like autoerotic asphyxiation to me (IMO, of course). The way I see it Choking game is more of a phenomenon (in lack of a better word, I'm not a sociologist or a psychologist) than just an "innocent name" for self asphyxiation. The idea of starting a new article under the same name but different (incorrect) capitalization makes no sense to me. DiamonDie 11:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-write (preferably from the scratch) as per Ex nihil and Mandsford. - Mike Rosoft 14:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs some rewriting. Renaming it will simply result in the recreation of the article,unless the rename includes a redirect. (The "choking game" is probably the most common name for it --- unless you consider "suicide" as a cause of death to be a more popular name.)jonathon 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that most of the kids doing this are just looking for a "high" and aren't looking to kill themselves. So while they can commit suicide while doing it, it's not always intentional. Dismas|(talk) 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My impression is that most families don't realize that the death was accidental, unless a psychological autopsy is performed.(That was from an NPR report a year or so ago.)jonathon 18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but permit re-creation à la Mandsford per Mandsford, this article has to go, but I'll admit that this activity is notable. Carlossuarez46 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that if this article were to be recreated under the same title it would inevitably acquire the same content. Actually much of the current content is quite good and accurate, it is just that the article presents itself as something that is potentially fun, a game in fact, rather than something horrible. I would be happy to try to rewrite this as a medical article and move it under a more clinical title and retain Choking game as a redirect. To make that work we would need much better stats in the introduction than we have currently, any one can contribute to that now. Ex nihil 07:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming à la Ex Nihil Starting from scratch would sooner or later lead to the same problem.--victor falk 19:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. The discussion addressed whether the topic was important/significant enough, an issue that may be addressed through CSD A7. There was little to no discussion on whether enough reliable source material exists for the topic to meet general notability guidelines and for the article to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. The delete reasoning was weak such that the consensus could not be delete per policy. -- Jreferee t/c 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Jain[edit]

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

Non-notable academic competitor and high school kid. I found this article on a request for comment; I thought it was so ridiculous that I went ahead and put it here. Well, he did get a NG article for winning a geography bee, but I still don't think he's notable. Sorry if that's poor etiquette. Cap'n Walker 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, I seem to have stirred the pot! From my User Page: "You are absolutely ridiculous! The only reason you want Bonny Jain's page deleted is because you've never even had a chance to win a National contest. " Sorry, there are lots of national contests for youngsters every year, and plenty of winners. They don't all merit articles. Cap'n Walker 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the event he won is notable, and its a unique achievement, seeing as though there is only 1 national winner per year (and its no cakewalk to win). The article can use a little bit of copy editing to avoid the resume feel. Perhaps this is walking down a dangerous path ending in stub articles for all the winners, most of whom are still in their teens and deserve their privacy, but as far as strict wiki-lawyering goes, this meets the guidelines. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Cosmic Penguin notes that this event is notable. I agree, and the event should have an article. Cosmic Penguin notes that "winning the event is a unique achievement, seeing as though there is only one national winner per year" I think this statement is a contradiction. Unique implies a singular achievement, yet there are many people who can claim winning this event. Does every middle schooler/high schooler who wins a national debate, cheerleading, chess, tennis, golf, poetry slam, martial arts, etc, etc, etc title deserve to be the subject of an article? I think the dangerous slope here is starting to decide which event of this nature qualifies the winner for an article .... Does the National Geographic Bee or National Spelling Bee somehow confer special notability over a national martial arts champion (for example)? LonelyBeacon 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not have any long-term notability. The person is already listed in the article on the contest. That is sufficient. Silverchemist 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National Geography Bee Champion is a notable achievement. National spelling bee champ qualifying for permanent notability is a precedent for this. Horrorshowj 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, the main article mentions him, that is enough, but if this article is deleted so must Susannah Batko-Yovino and Andrew Wojtanik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.162.158 (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This person is known for one and only one accomplishment: that of being an academic competitor at the elementary school level. This is non-notable for the exact same reason a high school quarterback setting a national passing record is non-notable. Further, the article has essentially been edited only by its creator (subject?), vandals, and those reverting vandalism. I believe that Wikipedia policy speaks to this. If this means that other articles in a similar vein must be deleted, then so be it. LonelyBeacon 22:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete He's a great kid, but not worthy of an article in any encyclopedia, even Wikipedia. The fact is, his NGB championship happened as a 13-year-old. To whomever agrees with the post on Cap'n Walker's talk page, all I have to say is : Yes, I have won a national championship. And I don't deserve an article either. // 15 years from now, when Bonny invents a new type of cheese or discovers the ninth planet in our solar system, this article should be reinstated, mentioning the NGB championship. But until then, I just don't think he's "notable" by Wiki standards. // And the same goes for Andrew and Susannah, though I would be interested to find out the story behind this Calvin McCarter kid who won it as a 5th-grader.... Cornfused00 07:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but also it violates WP:NEWS and WP:BLP. Bearian 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Although the topic may be important/significant enough to meet CSD A7, consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines due to the lack of sufficient reliable source material. -- Jreferee t/c 16:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game[edit]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Collectible Card Game is a collectible card game based on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And that, restated in a number of innovative and verbose ways, is about it. Oh, wait, no, we also have the rules. And a game guide. Seriously, one could almost speedy this as being nothing more than a restatement of the title. There is nothing here that is not completely obvious from the combination of "Buffy" and "collectible card game". As far as I can tell this is just a completely generic spin-off "game" (i.e. trading card marketing hype) which is indistinguishable in any important respect from a dozen others. It's not spam, they don't seem to make it any more, and it's not even really Buffycruft, as it's not about Buffy at all, it's just a write-up by fans of the game. There is enough decent material here for a sentence in the Buffy franchise article: "And there was a trading card game". Cruftbane 19:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I see some gameguide issues, but nothing unfixable. The rest of the afd seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Some sources are required before it passes WP:N though. Artw 20:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not "I don't like it", more "it's completely generic and there's no evidence of lasting cultural or historical significance or non-trivial independent analysis". As in: the world does not give a damn about it. Cruftbane 22:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom + no assertion of notability--Victor falk 03:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! This is a serious (albeit officially discontinued) card game with organized tournaments, official judges, a substantial community, etc. It can't compare with, say, Magic, but that would be raising the standard awfully high. I'm rather baffled by the nom's "that ... is about it" comment -- the article seems perfectly well-organized and informative to me, and I really don't understand why it is being belittled. — xDanielx T/C 06:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it's generic. The title says all you need to know: it's a trading card game with a Buffy theme. The rest is a game guide. Cruftbane 06:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really isn't the spirit of WP:NOT#GUIDE (or whatever other policy/guideline). Wikipedia isn't the place for comprehensive, indiscriminate procedural information, but what's included in the article is just very basic background info which is rather essential to any baseline understanding of the card game. WP:NOT#GUIDE is one of those dangerously oversimplified policies which can be applied to virtually anything if we stretch it just a bit (is Microsoft a guide to the Microsoft corporation?). — xDanielx T/C 03:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a game guide, it's an article. It is only logical that an article about a game contains information about how the game works (although it would be good if this article had some more information on the influence/history of the game). Would you want to delete the article stud poker because it is a game guide? Melsaran (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't there be an AfD notice on the page? I checked article history, and one was never applied. Turlo Lomon 10:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a Notability tag, as it does need references to establish notability. If Cruftbane wants to continue with his afd he should place the appropriate notice on the page, and the closing of the debate should be pushed back acordingly. Otherwise close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 17:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bum. I have intermittent problems with Twinkle. Now fixed. Cruftbane 19:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It may very well be that some of the game guide / rule material needs to be removed, but the game seems notable, in that even though it was cancelled some time back, there are still a large number of people devoted to it. It even still has monthly newsletters (e.g. September 2007) created by the community! Perhaps the article needs to be fleshed out with some information about the community created around the game...? --Slordak 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm going to refrain from commenting on the article's ultimate fate, as I've yet to come to a solid conclusion about this one. However, I would like to comment to Cruftbane: I admire and appreciate your dedicated work and presence at AfD. However, I think your prose here is unnecessarily harsh. There are ways to critique, criticize, and even argue against an article without stooping to belittling. I also know that you know this, because I have seen you do so eloquently and appropriately many times before. - Che Nuevara 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 13:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article clearly needs cleanup, but I'm not convinced that the subject isn't notable. Rray 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slordak. Obviously a notable game, with official tournaments being held. WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments for deleting it as "cruft" or a "game guide" are not convincing. Melsaran (talk) 10:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know for a fact that this game was written up multiple times in Scrye and InQuest magazines. Of course, these sources aren't available online, but they're out there. -Chunky Rice 00:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. Lack of reliable secondary sources are evidence this game is not notable.--Gavin Collins 12:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the article lacks reliable secondary sources is not evidence that the subject is not notable. I could write an article about Abraham Lincoln, fail to include reliable secondary sources, and the subject matter would still be notable. As Chunky Rice pointed out above, Scrye and Inquest magazine have both covered the game, so it's not that these sources don't exist. It's just that the article needs someone to add footnotes. And there is no deadline at the Wikipedia. Rray 13:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 06:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Hospital[edit]

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

Delete - scarcely notable, certainly not under WP:NOTE. It contains mainly material drawn from the two episodes in which it appeared; both episodes' articles already contain this info and a note about its double occurrence, so nothing would be lost by its deletion. NB... Limehouse Green station is a redirect page that will also need to be deleted. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no real world info, and unlikely to be enough real world sources to ever have a proper article. Mmmmmaybe redirect to one of the episodes it appears in, on the off chance that someone may watch an episode and type it in (unlikely, but possible). If so, I'd say "Aliens of London", since that gives a (very) brief mention of the real-world location of the fictional hospital. (But if it does become a redirect, I still say delete Limehouse Green station - I sincerely doubt anyone would ever search for that.) --Brian Olsen 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 00:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola V265[edit]

Motorola V265 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Reads like an advert; just a list of specs and no substantial sources. Listing after contested prod. Mikeblas 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless deleted as part of mass removal from {{Motorola phones}}.Delete -- going through list to see if there are other proddable entries. Sorry for disputing it in the first place.--SarekOfVulcan 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Mass removals are rarely successful and, from my scan, almost always result in a suggestion to individually nominate articles in the field. Either the article fits in Wikipedia, or it doesn't. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF for other reasons your argument might not be valid. -- Mikeblas 14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog, and this product info blurb is referenced only to the manufacturer's literature. Does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn model. Carlossuarez46 06:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Brain[edit]

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

non-notable individual Rapido 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article appears to be about amateur radio moreso than the title subject. - CobaltBlueTony 18:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As a biography, the article fails WP:BIO. Charles Brain has not been the subject of an independent biography, has not received widespread media coverage for his amateur radio involvement and does not have widespread name recognition. His concept of combining AMBE with Forward error correction is pretty common and is not of itself an enduring contribution to the historical record. In anticipation of this AfD succeeding I have merged some of the detail of this article into the AMBE page so that what limited notability it has is preserved in the appropriate place. That being done I cannot see the point in retaining this separate article. Euryalus 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO, WP:N. Carlossuarez46 06:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as violating WP:NOT, with the caveat to create a proper article per WP:LAW or to wikisource it later. Actual text cut-and-paste of a case is also potentially a copyright violation of WestLaw, of which we must stay clear. I've edited hundreds of legal articles here at WP, and this is the only one I've seen that literally can not be fixed. Bearian 15:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pigford[edit]

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

Some sort of non encyclopedic description of a lawsuit? OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like the actual court decision. Maybe Wikisource? But nothing Wikipedia about it...no claimed notability, context, etc. DMacks 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikisource, or else do a complete rewrite saying why it is significant.jonathon 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki, I suppose, as it could be annotated or some such under Wikisource policy. Pigford v. Glickman was a fairly significant class action/consent decree [23] -- but there's little point to an article unless the original settlement is written up. --Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some background on the Pigford Claims Remedy Act page just created by the same editor who wrote Pigford. Alas, that page is a copyvio (tagged speedy as such). DMacks 02:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wikilaw per dhartung (is there such a wiki? I didn't knew that)Victor falk 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as without secondary sources, it is non-notable copy and paste text. --Gavin Collins 22:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Non-admin closure. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuccessTech Academy shooting[edit]

Re-opening this AfD. Please see below the colored box. Corvus cornix 22:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuccessTech Academy shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probable hoax, in any case, nothing on the radio. Recreated material. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn nom OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's real, sadly. DMacks 18:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crud. How do I widthdraw a nom? :( OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you just did by writing that. Not sure if nominators can close their own, given second-thoughts and no objections from others. DMacks 18:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't the school's page sufficient? --Kevin Walter 18:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school's page didn't exist prior to the shooting; it may not have been notable. And the shooting is probably going to be much more notable than the school itself, if the school itself is at all notable; most school shootings are. Not that I necessarily agree with it, but even minor school shootings have Wikipedia articles. Titanium Dragon 19:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a developing story. It may grow more substantive as we learn the details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallstreethotrod (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (for initial AfD) - Per for all previously noted reasons. - Ageekgal 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close - The event is real and developing.OSborn is also withdrawing his nomination--Lenticel (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [[[WP:NOT#NEWS|Wikipedia is not a news service]] Will (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nomination was withdrawn. Why still voting? - Ageekgal 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. I see it's reflagged, hence voting resumes. Someone's being BOLD -- good! Because if no one else feels compelled to edit the page, it is indeed non-notable as its own article. - Ageekgal 21:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not following your reasoning in here. It's not worthy of an article if it doesn't get the attention of more editors in the future? --Kizor 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (second AfD). This is the first school shooting in the U.S. the wake of the Virginia Tech massacre, nearly six months' to the day. - Ageekgal 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons previously noted, I believe this spans beyond standard news material. Burntsauce 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, or merge with SuccessTech Academy at the very least. --Ixfd64 21:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the nomination withdrawn and nigh-unanimous support for keep, can we close the AfD as a speedy? --Kizor 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening this AfD. This should be deleted, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Corvus cornix 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but the event was notable.

-- Mik 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot to add a Keep.-- Mik 20:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Maybe i'm wrong, but this half closed/half open AFD seems to be the wrong way to go in my personal opinion. I'd think either DRV or AFD #2 would be a cleaner option.--Cube lurker 04:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • My bad looks like AFD 2 had already started without me noticing.--Cube lurker 05:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closed as Delete WP:NOT for stuff made up in school one day, and consensus below seems unlikely to ever be anything other than delete.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 04:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 clicks to Jesus[edit]

4 clicks to Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not for games that you made up in school one day and already exist in other more well known forms. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and WP:NFT. --Finngall talk 18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NFT and non-notable, exxentially by author's own writing. DMacks 18:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor variant of a Wikipedia based game.jonathon 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT, probably speedy. JFW | T@lk 20:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 clicks to delete heaven. Burntsauce 21:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete nothing notable a game made up in school. Ridernyc 22:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy snow delete per all above and quite a few more reasons I imagineVictor falk 03:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW is falling. RFerreira 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete due to lack of sources. W.marsh 18:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mudgirls[edit]

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

Probable hoax, possibly nn. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pardon me, I'm new to wikipedia editing, but why on earth would this be a hoax? I'm in the process of editing this page and am about to add the link to their official site: http://www.mudgirls.ca/. Perhaps this adds credibility. Emcjagger 18:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - It may add credibility but it doesn't add notability. There is no assertion of notability in this article much less any references. I rather doubt that any will be found that meet WP:ORG. ---- WebHamster 18:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry if it seems we are being unkind to a newcomer. But anyway this process most likely will take 5 days so there is time to debate. The slang nn above means not notable. Many groups exist. To show this one needs its own article what would help is multiple non trivial reliable sources. This site doesn't count since it is not independent of the topic. If you have them, please share and I (and others) will change mind. The basis for speedy seems weak to me. What is the rush? Obina 18:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Well, Mudgirls have gotten a lot of media coverage in print, radio and TV, but most of this has been by small local publications who do not have online archives, so I haven't been able to find many on the web. I will have to contact the founder to get more references, which may take a few days (she lives in the woods). Meanwhile, I have added a couple links to what online articles I have found. Do blogs count as secondary sources? Emcjagger 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs usually don't count. --SmokeyJoe 09:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very interesting but unfortunately non-notable. --Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This enterprise is somewhat local to me so I might be exhibiting homegrown bias, but I suggest that the "Shared Vision" cite lends a reasonable amount of notability; it's an arm's-length third-party source. I wish there was more ... as above, I think this is very interesting, but I can't find any further sources. Unfortunately this one [24] is an ad for a course they offer, because it's also third-party. Perhaps this could be merged with an article on cob construction? Accounting4Taste 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This The globe and mail is a more general recent article about the type of building that these women are doing. Regrettably it doesn't mention the group's name. Accounting4Taste 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So perhaps make an article about the type of building and mention this group.Obina 20:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I herd u don't liek it. Burntsauce 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as of now the mud girls do not look notable, but I can imagine they have been noted. Look for sources that satisfy WP:SOURCES and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Good hunt.--Victor falk 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep They have had local publicity. Whether or not they have a long term future is debatable. (There are other feminist communes, though they tend to be publicity shy.)jonathon 09:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung, sorry. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of sufficient reliable source material for the topic to meet the general notability guidelines. Comment Since 1997, Mud Girl (or Mudgirl) has been a notable all-female pop/rock quartet from Vancouver, B.C. In 2007, non-notable Nashville's Brenda Best became infamous as the "Mudgirl" in Brad Paisley's "Mud on Tires" video. I could not find anything on Lasqueti Island Mudgirls or Lasqueti Island Mud girls. If someone is interested in keeping or recreating the article, they may want to search each of the alternative weekly newspapers for article material. The alternative weekly newspapers are listed at List of alternative weekly newspapers. -- Jreferee t/c 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE per A7, G11 and G12. -- But|seriously|folks  06:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Gelinas[edit]

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

Written in first person, probably nn person. Possible WP:OWN, WP:N, and WP:COI violations just off the bat. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, and tagged as such. Obviously non-notable, self-promotion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was consensus to delete. Cool Hand Luke 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Betty (porn star)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. In 2 years since the first AfD, no substantial secondary sources have been added, only one site which (trivially) lists her films. There is no indication in the article that she meets the guidelines; no notable awards, coverage in the mainstream media, etc. are claimed. Also, as is well known, a long filmography is not an indicator of notability for pornographic actors, since such films can easily be produced by the dozen. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NOTE. If all the folks in the first AFD had found one additional source, there would be plenty. A notable actor should have at least something written about her in something. Perhaps there is a german language source? But has been 2 years without one it seems. Obina 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definite NN. As mentioned, the only "source" is just a link to a filmography, which is listed, and shouldn't be in the article anyway. Major POV comes across as pure Advertising. Pretty sure this qualifies for a speedy deletion. ->Btl 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing but a film database entry with spammy intro. • Gene93k 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source(s) poor and non existant; been around a long time with very little interest or improvement. --Stormbay 03:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Comments in the prior AfD imply that she met the requirements for Notability (Pornographic actor). OTOH, the article doesn't reflect that data. jonathon 09:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite a reliable source that backs up the claims in the prior AfD. All porn stars are "well known" and "famous." Notability needs to come from a WP:RS not related to the subject and not selling the subject's products. The old Notability (pornographic actors) guideline said that too. • Gene93k 10:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the old WP:PORNBIO this would have fallen under the niche performer area. She has been prolific in her area and appears to be well know for that. Just because these are German films it makes English sources difficult to find. However this article needs to be deleted as a copyvio of [[25]] and not for lack of notability. Vegaswikian 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unsourced and doesn't meet in any verifiable way the ridiculously lax standards of the Wikiporn project. VivianDarkbloom 22:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Couldn't find any significant coverage on Google (English or German). Epbr123 22:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freaking Huge House Adventure[edit]

The Freaking Huge House Adventure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Probably non notable comic, page is not particularly encyclopedic. (member list, and trivia are prominent) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable by far. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Unremarkable web content, no assertion of notability whatsoever. A grand total of five Google hits suggest a very negligible web presence. --Bongwarrior 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm a member of this comic but i dont think we deserve our own Wiki Page, DELETE! Sorry Mellie, ~Victorkool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.196 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombastic[edit]

Fails WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Legis (talk - contribs) 17:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Change all references to the article to point to the wiktionary entry: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bombastic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto42 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:NOT. Wisdom89 18:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. Isn't there a single released by this title, or a very similar title? I can't help but think that there was. RFerreira 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea, but if so, the article can always be recreated. I don't suggest that often, but if there is a worthy potential article on a completely different subject, I don't think we need to retain this article. — xDanielx T/C 06:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily delete per above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill per nom. — xDanielx T/C 06:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Henry[edit]

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

Non-notable bio of local TV personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time[edit]

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time

The article is a magnet for POV, OR and vandalism, and mostly consist of a top 10 list and a hunk of unsourced trivia and analysis. As well, there are no sources that prove their significance. An article published by a magazine isn't notable simply because it caused some debate. There was a similar article for the 100 Greatest Guitarists that was deleted roughly a year ago. The AFD can be found for that here. At the very least, the page should be merged into the Rolling Stone article. Scorpion0422 17:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. Vandalism issues are a reason to place the article on your watchlist and patrol it, but they are not a valid reason to delete. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I seperated the noms is because there was a little-known book written about the albums list, whereas in this case there wasn't. It is almost the exact same boat as the Guitarists list was, and that was almost unanimously deleted. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reluctantly, because my personal feeling is disapproval for rankings like this. Be that as it may, articles like this one show notability, and articles like this and this show that the list has some acceptance as a reference. Other concerns aren't deletion qualifiers. CitiCat ♫ 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Same reasons the albums article should not be deleted. It's a topic still discussed 4 years after it was written. Very notable. --Endless Dan 20:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very very notable. [26] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe even WP:SNOW keep. Easily verifiable and notable list by verifiable and notable publication. There is nothing wrong with the list. If its a vandal magnet, try WP:RFPP, but this isn't a deletion issue.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, FUCKING KEEP Are you guys nuts? -- Metamutator —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metamutator (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying it will attract vandals is a non-arguement. You better start nominating all WP articles in that case. Lugnuts 15:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably warrants a brief mention in the parent article, but an article about a POV list is unencyclopedic. It contains little sourced commentary to establish notability. The JPStalk to me 20:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nominator isn't everything in the article verifiable in the Rolling Stone link? I may be missing something. CitiCat ♫ 09:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't everything need at least two links from independant sources to prove their notability? -- Scorpion0422 17:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you bother with the minimal Google search or even bother to look at the link I providedabove? Your still arguing non-notable without even the basic due diligence of a Google search. Thats a bad faith, knee jerk nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response to comment before previous) I thought you were discussing whether it could be verified. Notability sources I put in my comment above. CitiCat ♫ 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the nominator claims POV, OR and vandalism, but such is not the case here. Editors are not contributing a discriminate hodgepodge of what they think are the greatest songs of all time, it is a list that — while some may agree or disagree with it — was published by Rolling Stone a well-known magazine. Any POV, OR or related issues on Rolling Stone's part should probably be debated in a different forum, and vandalism should be handled just like any other vandalism. At wikipedia, it provides a valuable reference point for editors when writing articles about the individual songs; yes, the magazine would still need to be included as a reference, but this again is the starting point. At the very least, if this list is deleted, then the main article should provide a link to the main article; however, readers would lose the direct links. [[Briguy52748 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]] (P.S. — I never saw the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" article, but from the comments at that afd debate, I would guess that was an indiscriminate list of someone's opinion without relying on an official list. This is not the case here; Rolling Stone, as stated before, is a well-known magazine. A person can accept or reject the list, as is the case with any "all-time best" list as they see fit).[reply]
    • The 100 Greatest Guitarists list was also from Rolling Stone. -- Scorpion0422 22:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I simply don't see why this article is POV, I mean the article is about an actual article, not on what someone thinks. Since this doesn't need it, there should be limited editing with this article, because it really is a vandalism magnet, but it's got to stay.--Mariogc 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is of clear note from a major music magazine like Rolling Stone. I would however actually like to see it develop and actually see the Top 500. Now that would be more useful ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a rather noteworthy article and I see no reason to delete it. Catbox 9 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild delete - I somewhat disagree with the notion that this is "a POV article" -- the whole point of Wikipedia's POV policy is to make sure that the Wikipedia articles themselves are written from a neutral perspective -- the subject of the article does not have to have a neutral perspective (i.e. most movies, songs, books, documentaries, religions, etc., have a definite POV, yet it's possible [and acceptable, and expected] to have a non-POV article about them). However, I agree with the sentiment that this article lacks notability -- in other words, there really is nothing to write about (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay."). It seems almost fancrufty -- what Rolling Stone says in their magazine is for their readers to post/discuss in appropriate places (of which Wikipedia is not one). Rolling Stone is not the accepted authority for music rankings -- the Billboard charts are (largely due to the fact that Billboard's methods are quantitative/objective, whilst Rolling Stone's are qualitative/subjective). Again, there really is nothing to write about (..."Rolling Stone published this article about their opinion of the top 500 songs of all time. Yay.") Piercetheorganist 01:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see this Wikipedia article as instigating discussion posts derived from the Rolling Stone magazine article; Wikipedia has policies in place that prohibit general discussion about the topics (i.e., the remark "I thought "Song X" by Band Y sucked and didn't belong on the list" is not allowed on the talk page and should be removed on sight). Yes, I agree that articles such as these can attract vandalism or fanboy point-of-view posts, but that's what policing this article (and similar articles) are for. For me, this article seems to meet the standards of POV, verifiability and (yes) notability. While Piercetheorganist makes a point that the opinions of Rolling Stone are indeed qualitative/subjective (compared to the quantitative/subjective methods of Billboard magazine), the fact is that the article itself generated discussion in the mainstream and was a bold undertaking by Rolling Stone. [[Briguy52748 12:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment These are opinions too: Dow Jones Industrial Average and Billboard Top 100, and they are just as defining and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An additional point - We have articles that list Grammy Award winners (many different articles, in fact), and these are voted on by a committee based on opinion of what singer, song, album, etc. is most deserving. All this article does is reference a magazine article that awards songs another distinction - the best songs of all time. [[Briguy52748 23:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Speedy keep “magnet for POV, OR and vandalism”??? Articles don’t get deleted because they are vandalized a lot! This is an article of critical importance! --S.dedalus 21:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Energy blast[edit]

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

Pure original research, not sure if it asserts WP:NOTE but has no confirmed sources or for that matter, refs. Article has been existent since 21 August 2004 and not once has a useful citation or external link been added. Merge to List of comic book superpowers#Energy blasts at this time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing beyond original research. Kind of amusing that it's a physics stub. CitiCat ♫ 18:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nomination. Energy blasts are rediculously common in fiction, so it should be mentioned. However, I don't think it would pass either WP:NOTE or WP:FICT, and the article's current form does seem pretty "original research" heavy (I wouldn't quite say pure OR). Maybe a quick summary on various "list of superpowers"-type articles would be acceptable, but I doubt it should stay as its own article (and I'm the type of person that's generally against deletion). The world's hungriest paperweight 20:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per HungryPaperweight and Sesshomaru. You Can't See Me! 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative OR about a fictional thing that has nothing in common between a range of wildly disparate range of work of fiction--Victor falk 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's a copyvio of this page CitiCat ♫ 04:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Snowden[edit]

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

WP:NOT, loaded with OR, likely an autobiography as it was written by a SPA Toddstreat1 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Allow for recreation if sources can be found that show notability, but doesn't look likely. CitiCat ♫ 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at this time. The one thing I found, which is curiously absent from the bio,Snowden, apparently owns a strip club in Vegas. From the article (the link of which I forgot to copy, oops) "KEITH WHITLEY drank himself to death in 1989, leaving Lorrie Morgan a widow. On Thursday a Vegas financed 7-ft. bronze statue of the country singer will be dedicated in Whitney's birthplace, Sandy Hook, KY. Footing the bill is Richard Snowden who coughed up more than $200,000 for the memorial. Snowden owns Rick's Tally-Ho, an all-nude club. Business must be good."--Sethacus 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Rick's Tally Ho is in NY.--Sethacus 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Before someone starts worrying about a libel case, here's a link to an article in Buffalo Business First magazine reprinted in Mr. Snowden's own website, and here's one on the mag's website. Actually, he might be worth an article, (although obviously not the autobio there now) but likely he's only of local interest. CitiCat ♫ 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was consensus to delete. No sources, possible fraud. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malingsia[edit]

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

This was originally in Tagalog and was translated. I wasn't sure if this was an attack page or not; I was concerned about the potential for slander/libel. This might qualify for deletion as a neologism, since there are no references. I thought I'd bring it to AfD and let everyone express their opinion. Accounting4Taste 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced semi-nonsense attack which claims, among other things, that Malaysia bombed Indonesia in order to stimulate tourism (?!) What the hell? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources for this article? (Even the Tagalog original might be worth reviewing.)jonathon 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it certainly is an attack page. By the way, the original was not in Tagalog but in Indonesian. Bessel Dekker 01:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies for getting the language wrong; definitely not one of my skills, and I just took a guess. Accounting4Taste 01:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main thing is: we seem to be agreed on the undesirability of the text. (The Indonesian original was the same, more or less.) I put an explanation in Indonesian on this user's talk page, so that, hopefully, he will understand what's wrong with it. Best regards, Bessel Dekker 01:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the saying is true, though. Name one false accuse if you can.

The complete absence of sources implies that it is complete fabrication.jonathon 10:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted an extensive reaction on Talk:Malingsia. There are sources, but many of them are heavily biased. Beside, the article does not describe a phenomenon so much as voicing (quite hostile) opinions. Parts of it could be used elsewhere, as I try to demonstrate on Talk:Malingsia.
The Indonesian wikipedia has no article on the subject. Bessel Dekker 15:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a policy of neutral Point of View. WP:NPOV. Like it or hate it, that policy mitigates against options that are not verifiable.jonathon 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we trying to hide the truth? The terms of Malingsia nowadays is getting popular among Indonesian (you should watch all Indonesian Forum for this). About the terrorist, maybe that is the only thing that we need to edit, because we need a further investigation. I am not happy with the fact that Wiki is trying the truth from the world. Are we hiding the fact that there's a war in Iraq? I dont think so? This is history and we need to preserve it. petualangan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petualangan (talk • contribs) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

- Are we trying to hide the truth? The terms of Malingsia nowadays is getting popular among Indonesian (you should watch all Indonesian Forum for this). About the terrorist, maybe that is the only thing that we need to edit, because we need a further investigation. I am not happy with the fact that Wiki is trying the truth from the world. Are we hiding the fact that there's a war in Iraq? I dont think so? This is history and we need to preserve it. petualangan

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

The result was consensus to delete. Possible hoax. Cool Hand Luke 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Basile[edit]

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

This totally-unsourced article, created by an SPA which never edited again after creating it, appears to be a hoax: a search on "Business 2000 Magazine," the publication in which the subject purportedly placed 35th on a list of the "Top 100 Women in Business to Watch in 2000," generates one lone Google hit, so it would appear the publication may not even exist, let alone ever have named the subject to their "Top 100". Searches on "Samantha Basile" and "oil" or "petroleum," the industry in which she is purported to be a "leader," return a small handful of hits -- including, it appears, to the subject's LinkedIn profile -- but nothing suggesting the subject's supposed prominence in the petroleum industry. --Rrburke(talk) 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Double checked, also found nothing of note. CitiCat ♫ 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Triple checked. Probable hoax as the magazine doesn't appear to exist. The only Samantha Basiles I find are soccer players and college students.--Sethacus 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Checked all links including www.donthirethem.com, or possible correct spelling www.donothirethem.com and www.corporateblacklist.com both do not exist. No notable contributions referenced relating to the oil industry discovered. All contributors to this article do not appear to have ever contributed to any other article or discussion prior. Article obviously developed for the sole purpose of discrediting and or harming this individual. Suggest deletion although somewhat intrigued in individuals ability to invoke such acts of jealousy and or childish behavior of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forerunner11 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Street Blitz[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:Notability. G-hits are limited and my admittedly cursory look through the G-hits didn't find news stories about it. Without reliable sources, I'm inclined to sayd delete it. Pigman 16:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Due to low participation, I will consider undeleting if anyone can make an argument for it on my talk page. W.marsh 18:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lockin' Out Records[edit]

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

N/N org that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Close due to withdrawal of nom thus default keep--JForget 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Tycoon[edit]

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

Unreferenced video game with no evidence of notability. Not all video games are notable. Bart133 (t) (c) 16:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A google search for > "Game Tycoon" Review < brings up sources and evidence of notability immediately, including a Gamerankings page with 13 review scores and links to several of them. Suggest withdrawal/closure of AFD. Someone another 02:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been a WP:stub since a long time - but the game definitely is notable, with plenty of online and offline press coverage (as e.g. the link by User:Someone another shows). So all we need is someone to take a few hours of time and write the article, no reason to delete. --Allefant 11:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. The links given above sufficiently assert notability. Bart133 (t) (c) 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was closed as a duplicate AfD; the principal AfD for this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salian Mythology. Sandstein 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Salian Frankish Mythology[edit]

Salian Frankish Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD) This article lacks Reliable sources, and can not be made verifiable. It is based on a single student's writings and so it does not have the required NPOV. It also contradicts with major scholars on several points. The concerns that arise from the article have been discussed with the original author, but he is not willing to adress the arguments. johanthon 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with Continental Germanic mythology-- It appears it one of those scholar wars. I believe that deletion is not a good way to handle the problems in articles, that they create. A better way is engaging editors writing in a closely related field, eg "continental mythology" Victor falk 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are to many problems with sources and verifiabillity. That makes it certianly NOT "one of those scholar wars" johanthon 13:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, that was not a good thing of me to say. I see that both this and Salian mythology have have been nominated for Afd, and that the debates on the discussions' page are not tepid. French history and nordic mythology are two areas where I can say I know a bit more than the average man on the street, and I say it's WP:SNOWBALL that it is a notable subject. However, given, as you say, the paucity of sources about late antiquity germanic tribes, much in the field is speculative. My opinion is that in such cases it is recommendable gather the material in an article with a broader scope, as to have as many opinions as possible in related but uninvolved subjects. What not to do is to let the article fester as a "lord of the flies" povforkisland.--Victor falk 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)--Victor falk 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of Frankish Mythology is certainly an interesting one, but the article is about Salian Frankish mythology. Since there are hardly any sources on this one, it is hard to make an article at all. So Viktor's WP:SNOWBALL is highly optimistic: How can we make an article on a case without sources??? Viktor is also forgetting the way the original author reacts. He tries to belittle a wikipedian because of her occupation, and tells you to keep your "senseles waffle". This is part of the problem. The article Salian Frankish Mythology was the same as Salian Mythology but Rokus01 (the original author) changed that in a redirecht page when he noticed that the majority of votes on Salian Mythology were for deleting the article. So he deleted it himself and started the same all over. johanthon 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The salians a frankish subtribe, is there much difference between their mythologies? I'd like to know such stuff, and not the least different theories. I think it's a pity what could be good articles are flushed because of editors pushing for "my truth, not yours".--Victor falk 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that why several wikipedians asked for reliable sources and more scholars? johanthon 08:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 23:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Sale[edit]

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

This is a non-notable amateur film maker. The article's claim to notability is that he has made award winning films, yet the source quoted (a press release issued by bayside.vic.gov.au, not news sources) indicate that his "prize" was a $30 book voucher and a DVD. I'm not knocking it; but there's a big difference between winning an Emmy, Oscar or other similar award and winning thirty Australian dollars. B1atv 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Odd lack of sources for an "award-winning filmmaker".--Sethacus 04:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 30 bucks, nice. Twenty Years 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - main creator of the articles is a red link namesake - so the self advertising bio/COI interest would concern me more than any actual notability or not SatuSuro 10:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of sources. RFerreira 22:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio, no claim of notability. Keb25 00:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another self-authored vanity page. Find your own website! WWGB 12:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Neuburger[edit]

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

Nn teacher. See originator's talk page for the unusual usage of "Rosh Yeshiva" used at YU. Dweller 16:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough reliable, third party sources to establish notability, though I may go back to the one advertising "Click here for sexy videos of Rav Yaakov Neuburger ".--Sethacus 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I agree that it take a little bit more than being a rosh yeshiva at YU to be notable, but not that much more. The author claims he is adding more, and I don't think we should jump on him. Give it some time. Jon513 12:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no undue haste here. It's been six days since the author edited the article. --Dweller 13:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because first of all this article is a stub and needs time, as the creator Diament (talk · contribs) himself requested on his talk page [27]. Secondly, to nominate an article based on one's POV is not the way to go. In this case User Dweller (talk · contribs) was offensive, condescending and dismissive of the article's creator, see discussion at User talk:Diament#Yeshiva University: "According to our article, there is no Rosh Yeshiva and if there is, it's Rabbi Lamm. ??? ...That's potty. Doing that completely destroys all meaning of the term "Rosh Yeshiva"." Thirdly, the article is part of a series and it's placed in template {{YU Roshei Yeshiva}} so to yank it would be to make holes in the attempt to document a coherent set of important inter-related finite biographies. Fourthly, if anyone feels that Yeshiva University has "too many rosh yeshivas" and doesn't like that, then there is an easy solution to that by simply placing them into Category:Yeshiva University rosh yeshivas where they belong, rather than hurling abuse at the creator of the article violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE and running to delete the first writings of a biography about an important rabbi. Finally, this article needs to be given the time it deserves to develop, such as by requesting more information and input from editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and should not have been subjected to this abusive form of nomination. Thank you, IZAK 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 13:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, just to explain the context and correct several incorrect assertions, I actually removed this article from speedy deletion candidates on the basis that it was about a Rosh Yeshiva. When I realised that the term was debased, I listed it for deletion debate.
    • Now, this article's up for deletion because I have concerns about the subject's notability, not because I am worried about YU's use of terminology. Nor is inclusion in a template (he wasn't... he is) grounds for keeping an article. If he's notable, and the subject of RS, great, we'll keep the article. I'll happily speedy close this AfD as "keep" myself if you add some RS and drop me a line.
    • Finally, if you have any complaints about someone's behaviour, the proper course of action is to raise them at the user's talk page, where they're guaranteed to see them, rather than at an XfD, where it is part of a user's watchlist that may be thousands of pages long. There's no abuse from me here... and I'd like to think I'm one of the least bitey admins around. --Dweller 13:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, but I stand by my assertions. And I note your comments above that you feel about Yeshiva University's Rosh Yeshiva's that "the term was debased" (you are repeating a POV judgment and canard on your part. How on Earth can you judge? Unless you are prejudiced against YU.) I am not the one writing the article, user Diament (talk · contribs) is and he has requested more time, so let's see he how he goes about it, but even so, there is no reason for him to be working under the gun as it were. Indeed if the article is about a faculty member of a major university/yeshiva that can be traced through his writings and accomplishments then there is no time limit here, so do not make this up please. The point about the subject being on a template is that there are really very few Yeshiva University Rosh Yeshivas and in fact there are far more Haredi and Hasidic rabbis who use the term. You seem to be missing perspective. Modern Orthodoxy in the USA only has YU as its college-level school/yeshiva so therefore all the Rosh Yeshivas are in one institution, whereas the Haredim and Hasidim have hundreds of large and small yeshivas and each one is headed by rabbis who title themselves "rosh yeshiva/s" and they may not be of any great stature themselves. Thus having a position that is called Rosh Yeshiva at the flagship (and only) institution of higher learning affiliated with Modern Orthodox Judaism in America is already a basis for notability. Finally, I re-read your comments, and I just cannot see how describing the hard work of an editor as "potty" to be anything but hurtful. That's my take on the situation. Thanks, IZAK 14:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's YU that I was describing as potty. If that was unclear, I certainly regret it. I'll drop Diament a line. (And, btw, I think a week is plenty of time.) --Dweller 18:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dweller: I will ask you now for the third time, please stop the name calling during this discussion. It's not about if you or anyone thinks that anyone or a place is "potty" and you have now obviously revealed that you dislike YU, which makes your moves here tainted by POV and a violation of WP:NPOV, so stop it. RIETS which is the main "yeshiva" part of YU is the oldest yeshiva in America, and for a very long time it was the only yeshiva in the USA, it deserves a little respect. YU is also a fully accredited university that is always ranked in the top 100 universities by the authoritative annual survey in US News and World Report. Only a relative handful of rabbis have held or hold the position of Rosh Yeshiva at YU, so anyone who has such a position, at this yeshiva which is also a major US university is perforce notable, and it can all be cited and sourced. Thank you, IZAK 13:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sigh. My comment about "potty" was made on someone's talk page. It's you that's chosen to bring it here and (endlessly, it would seem) bang on about it. My attitude to YU is not known to you and is irrelevant to this discussion, particularly as we are not discussing the institution, but the notability of one of its staff. --21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweller (talk • contribs)
  • comment Dweller makes a valid point about the title of Rosh Yeshiva in YU. In most yeshivas there is one Rosh Yeshiva - usually a very distinguished position. In YU there are many Roshei Yeshiva. So much so that the title of Rosh Yeshiva is YU is the same as the title of Ram in many other institutions. Nevertheless YU is a major center of Torah learning in the united states and most the Roshei Yeshiva are notable on their own merits. There are a few borderline cases. IZAK makes a good point, if we exclude the few borderline cases we will leave holes in a template. Kinda like having an article for every episode of a TV series and leaving out one that is "not notable". Jon513 12:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Being a rosh yeshiba amongst other at a very central institution isn't any less notable than being the only rosh yeshiba at a small institution. The article should be expanded as soon as possible with publications, publically known opinions, etc. -- Olve 12:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add outside independent references.--יודל 13:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Izak. Yossiea (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand as soon as possisble. There is not enough information to prove his notability but, given his position, some credit (and time) must be given. --JewBask 13:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per IZAK's description of RIETS, its status as a notable yeshiva, and its Roshei Yeshiva Avi 14:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As IZAK notes Yeshivah University's RIETS is one of North America's most notable rabbinical schools and considered the flagship theological institution of Modern Orthodox Judaism, and the position involved is somewhat analogous to head of a department at a flagship University. Thus there is possible/probable notability, although references still need to be supplied. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. At the moment the article hardly asserts notability, and contains insufficient information for the WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk 16:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand.Dovi 19:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB According to YU's website, they have 33 Roshei Yeshiva currently. --Dweller 21:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So? Is that a problem? Is 33 too large a number" Modern Orthodoxy only has this one institution in the USA, whereas Haredim and Hasidim have hundreds of yeshivas an kollelim, each with a rosh yeshiva and a rosh kollel. 16:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand --YoavD 05:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Give it some time, the article was just created a couple of days ago. --MPerel 05:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand/clarify or delete. Stub does not prove N at all. IZAK, thanks for pointing out the diluted use of the term at YU. If this title is given to many rabbis at a certain institution, it does not mean that they should automatically be given the same notability status that other main Rosh Yeshivas are given. Importance of the institution and internal promotion decisions of an institution do not automatically make someone N on WP, no matter how learned and 'important' they might otherwise be. Article should be immediately updated to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or Wikipedia:Notability (people).--Shuki 08:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shuki: That is why there is Category:Yeshiva University rosh yeshivas for this sub-group of Category:Rosh yeshivas. Who is going to give them farhers and figure out if they are as great as some of the other rosh yeshivas? You know, no-one has sat down and defined exactly what qualifies anyone to be a "rosh yeshiva" or how that honorific should or should not be used. It's the same with YU rabbis, many people to the right of YU, feel that YU is a "semicha mill" but if you really look closely, how many rabbis does YU produce compared to the other yeshivas combined? Very few. If you add up all the shtiebel rebbes and all the people that the Haredi yeshivas put out who become teachers, out-of-town kollel members, rebbeing in the elementary and high and bais medrash level, (and they function and are called and respected as rabbis, even though many of them lack formal semichas) then the Haredi yeshivas far outpace places like YU in "producing" rabbis. So if YU has a name for its top magidei shiur and calls them Rosh Yeshivas it is not as if every person in the place has been given that title. Our friend Dweller says that YU lists 33 current rosh yeshivas. So? All for the one and only Modern Orthodox institution, and how does that compare if you add up all the other rosh yeshivas (sometimes called "menahelim" and sometimes called "RaMs") who would constitute infinitely more. But it is a question of degrees, and there is no need to agonize over it.IZAK 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what's your point? If Belz starts doing the same thing, does it suddenly make all of their RYs notable? Some people would think that all rabbis are notable, but we know that on WP, it ain't so. Same for RY's. Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or Wikipedia:Notability (people). There should be a definite distinction between 'the' main Rosh Yeshiva or two. Again, are you basing notability on title? That's like saying that Dr. Nick Riviera is a real doctor. --Shuki 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, CSD:G12 (blatent copyvio) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave miguel[edit]

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

Blantant copyvio of this site, reads like a press release, author has removed copyvio and db-copyvio tags three times with no changes to article text, re-added tour dates to article. Speedy Delete Improbcat 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spanish Courts for Violence against Women. WaltonOne 09:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer[edit]

Juzgados de Violencia sobre la Mujer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Impossible to correct POV, Essay, Patent Nonsense Zape82 15:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stubify - per FisherQueen. Onnaghar talk.review 16:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, Court Rooms specialized in violence against women, are courtrooms, belonging to the normal crimal courts circuits, existing in the Spanish judiciary, not independent courts as the article prtends to say.
  • Keep and move to an English language title like Spanish courts for violent offenses against women. The official and provided sources seem to confirm adequately that these courts exist. As a feature of a country's judicial system, they seem surely notable. POV and editing issues do not warrant deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubén Mar. These Courts certainly exist, thanks for the reference to the Amnesty article, I´ll add the link and comments. There is a need for efficient protection for women, however, the problem we have is that the new laws really seem to directly conflict the human rights of a specif social group (men) and that issue needs to be addressed. There have been a number of complaints against men that were unfounded, and these men have suffered arrest and having their violations logged in a central registry before trials had been conducted. What is needed is a system that protects all citizens equally without prejudice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubén Mar (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rubén Mar. I´ve tried to keep the article neutral, representing all views, however, the technical legal issues are not views; there are clear conflicts. I have ammended the text to avoid making statements, however, article 14 says all are equal in front of the law, and that is not the case, and this is a fact, no? Rubén Mar 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rubén Mar. Please note that this article is aimed at providing a clear non-technical overview about these relatively new Courts in Spain, the reasons for their creation and the concerns raised largely by members of the Spanish legal profession, and the news from this month that the Spanish government wishes to see these or similar Courts adoped throughout Europe, and as such, this is an article that is aimed at the ordinary person, and should really not be discected and reduced or expanded into a full-blown legal review heavy with legal jargon that could make the article uncomprehendible to most citizens. I would not like to see professional lawyers, student lawyers or politicians edit this article heavily due to potential conflict of interests (I´m neither of these). I´d like to see (not that I have a view of course!) any relevant material added along the original aims of the article - its about this specific court, in Spain, and maybe soon near you! This is a community encyclopedia for all, right?!, so just some ideas! :) Rubén Mar 21:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that this discussion is just for the question of whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines, or whether it should be deleted. More general discussion of how it could be developed goes on the article's own talk page, so as not to distract from the question at hand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite and rename to an English name Subject definitely of encyclopedic notability--Victor falk 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and rename to a mos appropiate name Maybe the law's name, definetly this name doesn't comply with the spanish court organisationZape82 10:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its now called Spanish Courts for Violence against Women on the English language site. If or when its agreed, I can post a Spanish language version "Juzgados de violencia sobre Mujeres". Pls more advice, and "Stubbify"? Rubén Mar 18:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the newly created English version and delete the old one. I have tagged the talk page of the new version to WP:LAW. Bearian 17:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC) no change Bearian 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Carter | Talk to me 07:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Future Guy[edit]

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

Lead kind of says it all: Future Guy is a fanon nickname. Goes on to say that there is no backstory, and the rest is plot summary. Only cited "source" is to a non-reliable wiki site. Redirect to Temporal Cold War might be appropriate, but that article, too, is just plot summary. --EEMeltonIV 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC) PS: "Future guy" also seems an unlikely search term, another reason a redirect may not be appropriate. --EEMeltonIV 11:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeeppLet it stay, it fills a pieace of star trek lore that alot of people are curious about. It's a relevant topic. Please let it stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.198.44 (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for WP:OR. • Gene93k 20:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculative OR & fanon-notable --Victor falk 04:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete synthesis/OR. Wikipedia is not a collection of "star trek lore." The article at MemoryAlpha puts this one to shame anyway. --Cheeser1 09:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Star Fraternity[edit]

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

Does not provide sources or citations, or even a website. Does not say how, why, or even IF it is notable. —ScouterSig 15:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will Waterman[edit]

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

This young karter seems to have had some articles in the local paper, but doesn't seem to be competing at the highest level in his sport, and so doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria. Prod removed by creator, a friend of the subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the link in the article is to a genuine newspaper but indicates only that he placed second in a televised karting contest. Per WP:BIO this is neither widespread coverage nor evidence of an enduring contribution to the sport. Euryalus 06:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kayvon Zand[edit]

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

Delete nn model/actor with bit part roles, fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 14:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree that as an actor, he's non-notable (a single role listed in IMDB as "Villain"). As a model, equally non-notable (the IMDB listing for "The Devil Wears Prada" doesn't mention his name, although they mention 19 uncredited performers). As a musician, non-notable because AFAIK MySpace doesn't confer notability, there's no recording contract or issued albums. But there are two interviews cited in the article that seem to indicate notability -- ""Bodazey.com", which is "home of the world's Persian models", and "Iranian.com" -- at least in the Iranian-American community. I'm willing to be convinced either way, but I'm leaning towards deletion. Accounting4Taste 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals and WP:N. WP:SPS also comes into play since no independent news articles relating to subject exist. --Sc straker 11:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimoxinil[edit]

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

Delete fictional drug used in one episode of The Simpsons with no real world notability, and per WP:FICT Carlossuarez46 14:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Simpson and Delilah, as that is the episode which features this fictional drug. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. Already covered in the episode article. A redirect may me useful, but no need for a separate article.--Cube lurker 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, then Redirect Simpsoncruft. JuJube 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Simpson and Delilah which already contains sufficient reference to Dimoxinil and its place in this storyline. No need for a separate article covering a single fictional drug mentioned in a single episode of a long-running TV cartoon. Euryalus 05:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Castle Hill, New South Wales#Education--JForget 00:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gilbert Public School[edit]

Samuel Gilbert Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable primary school with 600 kids, says it all. Given the lack of an agreement at WP:SCH, it fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Twenty Years 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I don't see any rational for a redirect to Sandžak, but if there is a good reason, a redirect can be created. W.marsh 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandžaklija[edit]

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

Well, learn something new every day—the Balkans seem to produce new ethnicities at a remarkable speed. Basically, we have here some soapboxing about a fictitious new ethnic identity: to cut the long story short, the term "sandžaklija" does exist, and it refers to an inhabitant of Sandžak. In a more restricted sense, it is commonly applied to muslims of Sandžak, vast majority of whom declared their ethnicity as either Bosniak or Muslims by nationality. The rest of the article is a fiction.Duja► 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either Delete and Redirect to Sandžak or restore earlier version, probably this one, probably removing images. CitiCat ♫ 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a pseudo-ethnic group based on a regional term. I don't think that even a redirect to Sandžak would be a solution. --Laveol T 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sandzak--Victor falk 04:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 19:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea cavaletto[edit]

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

I have nominated this article~for the following reasons: Not notable, no references, POV, vanity...Iamchrisryan 16:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was CSD A7 (Band). ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Lane[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion: Not Notable WP:MUSIC. an unsigned unreferenced band. Iamchrisryan 16:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was close, discussion is taking place here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantis personnel in Stargate. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stargate Command personnel[edit]

List_of_Stargate_Command_personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
  • Close Almost 24 hours after an incomplete listing, no argument is presented. Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Close. Incorrectly created by DumbBOT (well, there you go). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Manual IV for ongoing debate. CitiCat ♫ 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Manual V[edit]

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


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

The result was converted to a disambiguation page. On my watchlist. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the rocks[edit]

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

The current revision is totally new content and subject but I looked through a number of revisions back to the start and I can't really see that this article has been or will be anything significant. If someone wants to make something more out of the article, fine, go for it. I'd say it's currently a non-notable record label. Pigman 23:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was WP:CSD#A7; notability not asserted; what's in there is specious. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Johnson[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion since this person is a high school athlete. I don't believe the information brought forth in the article warrents an article. not notable. Iamchrisryan 16:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete non-notable athlete. Improbcat 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep--JForget 00:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsundere and Yandere[edit]

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

Neologisms. Articles seem to be sourced from blogs. Tony Sidaway 14:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tsundere, at least. Please check the dictionary before you nominate stuff as neologism. I've never heard yandere and can't find it anywhere official-looking, but at worst it should be merged as an opposing term to tsundere. --Masamage ♫ 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tsundere - has become a key concept in manga and anime, especially in light novels. Obviously, needs some better sourcing; less of a definition and random list and more of a genuine article on the subject. yandere is not nearly as common and should go or be merged. Doceirias 23:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Yandere's entry in the Japanese Wikipedia listed a book as a source, should be worth looking at. The term is well known enough to have an entire game devoted to it. The term Tsundere I don't even have to argue for. The articles need better sourcing, but not deletion. _dk 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Masamage's arguments (including possibly merge yandere) —Quasirandom 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in numerous publications, discussed by anime, etc etc. I question the nominator's expertise and understanding of the subject matter, especially as a LexisNexis search or even a Google search would've turned up stuff like the tsundere cafe in Akihabara or Tomy Co.'s tsundere television set. --Gwern (contribs) 00:38 11 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep per Masamage, Doceirias, _dk, and Gwern. I would lean toward merging Yandere into Tsundere unless it can be sourced enough to stand on its own, though. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep tsundere - Common Japanese term, used extensively in anime/manga circles and even in famous anime series itself (eg Haruhi, Lucky Star). Possibly merge yandere, but the term has enough merit alone to be entitled to its own separate article as well. ~ Mpontes 01:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep foreign words and terms in common use in English or which are useful even if not in common use should not be deleted as Neologisms, they may need to go to wiktionary but there is enough detail and sourcing of this article to be more than a dicdef. KTo288 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess I was leaning towards delete, but there seems to be sources. There still might be a concern for original research on these articles, and because of that they probably should be pretty brief entries. We could easily merge them together or with some similar phrases from an organizational standpoint. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd change my Delete "vote", if sourcing on this can be done. Another term, Moe (slang) is chock full of original research. KyuuA4 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless this becomes some kind of "new" genre, this is just a term. After all, there's WP:DICT to consider. If anything, a new article containing a list of animanga terms (if not already existing) would be more sensible. KyuuA4 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, why does it have to be a genre? Tomboy is just a term, too. --Masamage ♫ 05:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I tried to look at it from a non-fan perspective. Yet, I just realized (that) it is a type of Character class. Mental note to Moe (slang), lolicon, catgirl, etc. Somehow, the term character class has to be involved here, because that's exactly what these are. Then, notability is an issue here. For something like, Tomboy, it is a real class describing a particular group of real girls. Of course, we're dealing with fiction here. So, I can ask, compared to - say catgirl, how "significant" is this term as a character class? KyuuA4 05:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Change Keep. Allow time to expand upon this as a character class. KyuuA4 05:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep We do happen to have Anime and manga terminology by the way, but I thought that was more to be used as a directory than a list to describe these terms in any kind of length. And as for the breathe of "significance", I believe the first few commenters in this AfD outlined some notable examples. And failing that, tsundere used to have an ongoing list of examples majoryly contributed by IP numbers. Anime/manga fans do tend to identify with the term, and readily know what it is, and not to mention that the more otaku sub-culture of anime fans hold the term with a sort of conviction. Google turns out 130,000; Yahoo 201,000.--十八 06:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous arguments. I hadn't heard of yangere before this, but tsundere is well-known; one of the recent volumes of Negima! specifically uses it to describe Chisame Hasegawa. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--JForget 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Interstate Highways[edit]

Proposed Interstate Highways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this article should be deleted, after any appropriate information is merged somewhere. It currently contains information about 7 "proposed" interstate highways. I believe this falls under the category WP:CBALL. 5 out of the 7 "proposed" highways have individual articles anyways. Those may also be crystal-ball articles, but I haven't checked them. Rjd0060 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: No crystal balling. Interstates listed are referenced and several are mandated by federal legislation. Many are under construction now. Only three have their own [interstate] articles. Article provides a good place for coverage instead of creating stub articles on each Interstate. -Fnlayson 14:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was incorrect, as were you. 4 have their own articles:

- Rjd0060 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very weak keep - While I see the rationale behind the AfD (seemingly fortune-telling in nature), most, if not all, are backed up with legit sources, which allow speculation if those sources themselves speculate. However, I think an article should be created for the ones that do not have an article as of yet, granted they have the sources to back up the statements; then, instead of a page with short blurbs, it could be a list and would then be in a perfectly acceptable format. EaglesFanInTampa 14:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. The article was like a list originally. List articles can more easily fill up with speculation and unsourced content. -Fnlayson 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then if we decide to create articles and list this one, why can't we bar the speculation like any other list. I mean, all we need is something like List of state routes in Delaware to cover this type of info. Or, we could go as far as something like List of county roads in Pinellas County, Florida, but sub the start/end points with any known projected termini and any estimated distances (all sourced, of course). In either case, it's keeping a running tally of the proposed IH's but losing the crap associated with its current form. EaglesFanInTampa 15:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd be OK a tabular list like that. Although I'd prefer paragraph form in this case as there are not many items. I think lists are generally harder to "police" since they are easier for people to add to like trivia sections. -Fnlayson 15:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike most things that are suggested, proposals for interstate highways are the product of a lot of study, planning, lobbying and politiciking that goes on in the United States Congress. Even if these don't come into existence right away, the campaign for a particular highway doesn't completely cease. In this case, these are proposals that have made it to debate. Mandsford 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the title says, these highways are proposed; there is no one hypothesizing that they may be proposed, they have already been proposed, and adequate reliable and verifiable sources have been provided to demonstrate notability. Yet another example of a case where WP:CRYSTAL has been misinterpreted. For that matter, keeping them in an article with the word "proposed" eliminates the knee jerk cries of WP:CRYSTAL violations that would invariably erupt if standalone articles were to be created. Alansohn 05:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is not crystal balling, as these proposals have been made by state or federal governmental bodies of varying types, and either are under development or under serious study. --Mhking 05:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mhking. —Scott5114↗ 07:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The law has been passed that proposes several of these. There are sources that verify them master sonT - C 09:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mhking --John 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While some of the Interstates covered in this article have articles, they are often very stubby and only contain one or two sources, both of which are reliable. This page exists to give a summary style approach to this topic—fully backed up by reliable sources, such as the law that authorizes construction, and newspapers. Content that is not backed up by reliable sources are removed almost immediately. That said, I say to keep this article. O2 (息 • 吹) 19:59, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep per Alansohn ----DanTD 23:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

255 McKibbin[edit]

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

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."

This looks like some urban factory where they made mattresses or light bulbs or something. Was the first light bulb manufactured there? There must be literately thousands of these buildings all across America. Just because some "artists" currently live there does not make it notable. Did Andy Warhol live there, or was it a textile factory for the last hundred years. Just because _you_ live there does not make it notable, regardless of the awesomeness of your Pabst parties. Furthermore a mention in some Gawker article is not notability. Anyone can write a blog post, that is the definition of a blog. Was there an editor involved, was there any research done on this building for the article. Again, because some friend of a friend wrote something on a blog doesn't mean anything regardless of readership. A lot of people also bought the Weekly World News, should there be wikipedia articles about alien babies. If this continues, next thing you know every Hipster in Williamsburg is going to want to write a wikipedia article on the converted loft they currently live in, to re-enforce the awesomeness of the apartment they're paying $3K a month to live in. In marketing terms, this is called "diluting the brand" every address in the world could potentially have its own wikipedia entry, but why. What thirteen year-old is going to look up "12 Main", or whatever.

In other words it is a non notable building; it is not a historical buidling, or an architectural masterpiece; it is not influential nor heavily discussed, and certainly not "somewhat legendary" as described in the article discussion. Plus no claims of importance in the article. Delete please. - DrVonMalfoy (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)— Possible single purpose account: DrVonMalfoy] (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

  • Keep - Significant complex in the New York City artist/hipster community, as indicated by the New York Magazine and The New York Times. Contrary to the nom's stipulation, a building can be notable if the first light bulb wasn't manufactured there. --Oakshade 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete slowly -- there is an assertion of notability within the article("a hipster landmark"), but the building has not been reported by reliable sources as notable. The mainstream sources cover the neighborhood, but a building does not assume notability from that. The only two sources that refer to 255 McKibbin directly are a blog and the New York City Department of Buildings, which you would actually expect to have a listing of all buildings, not just notable ones. This website - [28] - claims that there are 950,000 buildings in NYC, so we should be extremely selective in which ones we choose to cover. (The neighborhood seems to be covered even more than the building in this article, and seems possibly notable enough -- but that's a debate for another day.) Deltopia 16:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source doesn't have to actually say "255 McKibbin is notable." As long as the topic is the subject of the secondary reliable source, it's notable. They don't actually have to refer to it as "255 McKibbin" either as it's the actual building those sources are referring to, even if they don't entitle it like the Wikipeidia article does.--Oakshade 22:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some actual source somewhere needs to say that this specific building, by some identifiable name, is notable to meet WP:V and WP:NOTE. Is the notability actually in question? Do you have firsthand knowledge? Deltopia 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is that essay convoluted and self-contradictory (no wonder it's nominated for deletion), you're claiming the article creator actually lives there. Any evidence of that or is that a blind bad faith personal attack? An apartment building does not have to be The Dakota to be notable, regardless if a Wikipedia editor lives there or not. Send 834 Fifth Avenue to AfD if you honestly disagree. --Oakshade 21:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a guideline and it's not binding (WP:NOTE and WP:V are), I just thought it was an amusing coincidence that near the top of that list of ideas generally recognized as bad was apartment buildings. The article is clearly written with irony in mind (although, like much humor, it doesn't necessarily attain it), which is why it provides counterexamples to many of its admonitions. That does not mean the admonitions themselves are less valid; exceptions test the rule, but do not invalidate it. But forget the essay. I will change my assessment to Keep immediately if we find a verifiable claim of notability. Until then, I remain convinced that most apartment buildings are not notable. 834 Fifth Avenue says, right at the top, " It has been called 'the most pedigreed building on the snobbiest street in the country’s most real estate-obsessed city' in an article in the New York Observer newpaper." That's what I'm looking for - a notable claim from a notable source.Deltopia 22:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:HEY. It appears to have been sourced since nomination. Bearian 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 failing WP:BIO, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Bearian 23:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Therese Emma Caraher Gilbert[edit]

Marie-Therese Emma Caraher Gilbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable beauty pageant contestant, namely Mrs World (note not Miss World). Fails WP:BIO, no independent, reliable sources stated, and none are likely to be found given the very limited press coverage on her. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Questionable notability. JJL 14:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notability depends on how you view the the Mrs. World competition. As 1st runner up, she would appear reasonably notable in that context. It is not unknown for beauty pagent winners to lose their standing and have the 1st runner up take the crown. So we should at least have some mention of the backup winner for world-wide contests. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. She still fails WP:BIO. The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject, and more specifically, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two more added. I'm not sure about the accuracy of all the recent additions, however. But I think there may be a youTube interview somewhere... — RJH (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • She was runner-up for Mrs. Commonwealth, not Mrs. World. Here's an entertaining article on the Mrs. World contest, for which she and her husband were sources.[29] But I'm going to abstain on this one, though I'd be inclined to keep a national-level pageant winner if there were just more sources. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— When Marie-Therese held her title of 1st runner up, she received substantial press coverage in both Northern Ireland and New Zealand. She was interviewed on national radio in both Northern Ireland and New Zealand and interviewed with her family on Television in New Zealand. Glamazon 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)glamazonGlamazon 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 13:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Data administration. Daniel 09:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data resource management[edit]

Data resource management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This has been a stub for almost 2 years. It is possible somebody could write an article about this topic, but if nobody has done so in 2 years, we should just drop it. If somebody wants to come along later and write the article, it's easy enough to recreate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the article a bit (though it's still basically a stub), but after some though, I'd say merge into data administration (or visa versa; no preference in direction). The usage of the two terms is virtually identical, and PC Magazine treats them as equivalent (linky). I don't think the article is likely to grow substantially, but after merging we should have a decent stub which could be expanded a bit. — xDanielx T/C 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neogolism, akin to Data knowledge management, Knowledge resource management, Enterprise resource management etc., etc. --Gavin Collins 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't really consider it a neologism, since no individual source claims inventorship of the term of art. So I think the subject is notable, though not the term -- but you're certainly right that we already have too many redundant articles of very similar (and broad) scope. — xDanielx T/C 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: data models to facilitate data sharing between different systems, particularly in a corporate context. Whether or not it's a neologism, it strikes me as too airily abstract to support an article, and suggest that this article has been inserted to lend credibility to a consultancy of some sort. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Data administration. Need for cleanup/expansion is not a reason to delete an article... --W.marsh 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef mreh[edit]

Yosef mreh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Unsupported by any referencing, questionable notability, appears to be vanity or hoax article WWGB 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. Article claims that this guy wrote the ILOVEYOU worm, which is blatantly untrue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax article. --Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 19:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Yngvarr. You know what? Make that a speedy delete, lets not waste any more time on this. Hoax confirmed, and a non notable one at that. Burntsauce 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Look at the formula: it's got "hoax" written all over it. --Victor falk 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a collection of nonsense, please send criterion G1 to the rescue. RFerreira 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 23:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Explorer[edit]

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

Here's an interesting one. The creator wants this article he created deleted, believing it's spam. He even went so far as to slash out the refrences before trying to have it deleted and tagging it as G4. However, others have worked on the article (even undeleting it once) and wish to save it. Therefore, I'm bringing it here to help sort it out. This is procedural for me, but I'm leaning towards keep. (and by the way, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't apply, since the creator is not the only contributor) UsaSatsui 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Doesn't really sound like spam, it actually sounds fairly concise. The two articles in the NY Times and one in the Miami Herald appear to give it plenty of reliable sources and notability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I question the notability of the subject, and it does have a couple of spammy sentences. Or cut out two sentences and add context and sources to cement notability. --Evb-wiki 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or I have another option I wrote this article to help promote the service and ticket sales and to impress my boss, it has made a slight difference to ticket sales. Every now and then I will ask a European tourist how they found out about this service and roughly one in every 20 or so people say they read about this on Wikipedia. The thing is, now that I am more aware of how wikipedia works and their policy on advertising and stuff like that, I now believe that this article should not be here. [email protected]. 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of deleting I have another proposal. The Sydney explorer bus has a direct competitor that is having an affect on their business. I know this becuase I sell the tickets for the other bus as well, Its called the Sydney City Sightseeing tour bus, or something like that. What I will do in future if this article is not deleted is move the Sydney Explorer to a different article name under a more neutral name and combine it with the other tour bus. I believe this would make it neutral and not so much and advert for the one service. I also have pictures of both buses and some of the places that they stop at, to add later on. Both buses work the same way, they have so many stops around Sydney, they both have a Sydney and a Bondi Tour and they follow the same route almost. So I think the article could be renamed to Sydney sightseeing tours or Sydney tours or something that doesn't sound like advertising. [email protected]. 14:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adam, I know you feel you made this article with bad intentions, and think it should be deleted because of that. However, one of the things that happens around here is tht "bad" articles can get turned into good ones. It's one of the strengths of the system, something can be re-written by many others until it becomes better. I think it's kind of the idea. Your admitting your conflict of interest is a good thing, but why not just accept the fact that something beneficial for your business came out of it, and not feel guilty? Wikipedia isn't for advertising, but if people learn about your business through a legitimate encyclopedia article based upon notability, there's nothing wrong with that. --UsaSatsui 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was the admin who restored the PROD deleted article based on a reasonable requests. As is my practice, I do a search on the topic to see whether it meets WP:N to see whether I should list the just-restored article to AfD. My search turned up a significant amount of reliable source material, certainly enough for the topic to meet WP:N. I then added only two of the many references to the further reading section because they made reference to Sydney Explorer in the name of the news article and had significant information about Sydney Explorer in the article. This topic clearly meets WP:N. Damaging the article, threats to damage the article, and stories about the motivation behind contributions to the article are not a basis to delete the article. -- Jreferee t/c 14:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Euryalus 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are a number of sources referring to this service from third party sources as this Google News Archive search shows. [30] Capitalistroadster 02:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Capitalroadster, a bit of a cleanup would do. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's in need of a rewrite but the subject is notable. Disclosure: I've been on it, but almost anyone who's been to Sydney has, it's more than just a tourist service, it's sort of a semi-statutory icon. An encyclopaedic article can be written about it but would cover the positives and negatives. Orderinchaos 11:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not very strong, but the concept is a very important component of Sydney inbound tourism. Improve, but definitely retain. WWGB 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trenton, Florida, retaining edit history for GFDL purposes. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trenton High School (Florida)[edit]

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

Horrible article, littered with POV statements, no links, and terrible prose. Needs to be deleted if it cannot be improved. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 13:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn with POV issues. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD#A7: "No claim of notability"--Victor falk 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 18:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I tried to do the decent thing here and merged a summary onto the Trenton, Florida page. — RJH (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, no support for deletion now, nomination has been withdrawn, non admin closure. Davewild 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rome High School[edit]

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

another non notable school, while it proports the football team is one of the best in state, there are no sources to back this up, and if they are number 7 how they they be one of the best (sorry if I sould bitey). But I am nom'ing it due to no notability. Phgao 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Issue has been addressed. Phgao 03:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep meets the (embarrassingly low) standards for notability of U.S. schools. JJL 14:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking only for myself, i'd strongly support these same standards be applied to any school of similar level regardless of nationality.--Cube lurker 04:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJL. I will reconsider if sources are added that assert notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added a few new references which I believe help establish the school's notability, [31] [32] [33] [34], and per Notability {schools) arguments. Dreadstar † 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the changes made by Dreadstar, the school now meets our notability and verifiability guidelines. Burntsauce 20:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With Dreadstar's work it now looks like a solid high school article.--Cube lurker 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to meet notability. Personally I think specific notability guidelines probably need to be created for schools, since this is an oft-recurring question. Nice work, Dreadstar. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Great work by D.Star! Please speedy close this. Phgao 03:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author Gdk411 03:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, wow! Thanks for the great compliments, everyone! Dreadstar † 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's amazing what can be accomplished when one's goal is to improve the encyclopedia by improving articles. Great work! Alansohn 05:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was irrelevant, as the nominator has no desire to see the articles in question deleted or even merged (which wouldn't belong on AFD anyway), and is dangerously close to adding to his already impressive block history. Don't make people argue against positions you don't hold. —Cryptic 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belldandy[edit]

Belldandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Urd (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keiichi Morisato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All articles in Category:Oh My Goddess! characters

Non-notable four main characters from Oh My Goddess!. If not even the main characters aren't notable enough to be stand alone articles, neither should a list of them. -- Cat chi? 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

  • speedy close - this is pique about a merge suggestion. --Jack Merridew 12:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to List of Oh My Goddess characters. Emending my opinion. --Jack Merridew 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment — While this nomination includes all the characters, only the main characters are explicitly named. This is resulting in "Keep Belldandy" votes. This is an attempt to get a keep that can be claimed to apply to all with the goal of thwarting the merge discussions at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Too many articles for minor characters and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters#Merge character articles that are not going to the nominator's liking. This view has been expressed by others here. I would also like to point out the White Cat summarily reverted my initial merge-tagging of the character articles; see [35] and about 35 other reverts in the same 5 minute time frame. We all know that the reasonable outcome here is for editors to bring the main characters up to par (which is possibly doable) and a merge of the minor characters (because they're minor and because there is little possibility that they can be brought up to snuff). --Jack Merridew 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tone has decided to give me time as the initiator for the first thread. For that what have you done? Think about it. -- Cat chi? 12:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    (Above is a reference to User:Tone who first proposed merging the minor characters.[36] I don't see where he "gave you time"; he supported merging.)
    Time for you to improve the articles? And here you are proposing their deletion. Consider yourself awarded a pointy-barnstar. --Jack Merridew 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you in a state of panic? Is there a WP:BLP violation that demands urgent action? How is "So much for now" not an attempt to give me more time?
    You people who mass redirect fiction related articles in bulk, often doing so despite a discussion, declared all the characters of the series to be non-notable and imposed your will rather than seeking a consensus. Rather than submitting to your will, I have taken the matter to afd, a place where a wide variety of neutral users comment on the issue. The discussion is below. And my barnstar cluster is quite extensive - not that it means much.
    -- Cat chi? 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    The heck? It is a legitimate nomination. A test case at worst for such articles. -- Cat chi? 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    WP:POINT - but if you garner a few deletes, I'll change and support'em. --Jack Merridew 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I disrupting, and what am I illustrating? Your attitude seems confused. You say you do not want them deleted a line above with a "speedy close" yet on the next line you say you'd support deletion. Feel free to file a complaint at WP:ANB/I. -- Cat chi? 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    You seem to confuse WP:POINT and WP:CON... -- Cat chi? 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Why not start with this utterly non-notable bit of under aged fan service: Sigel (Oh My Goddess!)? --Jack Merridew 12:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bulk nom of all character articles. That is a part of this nomination as is Lind (Oh My Goddess!), and Peorth. If this succeeds I intend to nominate all the remaining articles. If the characters and episodes are non-notable, neither is the series. Simple basic logic. -- Cat chi? 12:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ya, I missed that --Jack Merridew 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a point? Stay on topic. -- Cat chi? 13:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Ya, that I missed that you had expanded the scope of your nomination to include all of the characters — including the fan service example I gave. --Jack Merridew 13:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fan service? She/It is a freaking robot. Sexuality is not an issue. That is the only official colorful image of her/it as she/is is a Manga only character with a prominent role in the manga. -- Cat chi? 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Please observe guidelines on coupyrights and non-free images. Edits such as this are problematic. Non-free images are not allowed at all on non-main namespace pages. -- Cat chi? 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Illustrating a point - without disruption. --Jack Merridew 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FBelldandy. -- Cat chi? 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep verifiable, notable, Wikipedia is not paper. If you want to work on a project that just covers the same stuff as Britannica, go apply for a job with Britannica. Wikipedia can cover stuff like this accurately... there seems to be no good reason to prevent us from doing so. --W.marsh 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:Notability, all articles are presumed to be notable by default, unless proven otherwise. And I AM holding quite a few sources at hand to prove anyone thinking of proving it otherwise wrong, so, what is your point in saying these articles are not notable? MythSearchertalk 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I missed that part of WP:NOTABILITY; when I last read it, articles had to establish their notability. --Jack Merridew 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed" means a rebuttable presumption. And one of the sources can be pretty much enough for Belldandy. From ISBN4-8124-054302 The pretty Character Chronicles, The History of Animation Heroines, 1958~1999, Belldandy is an iconic character of man's ideal female in all sense, and influnced later productions to create similar perfect female characters., In Game Players 1998 October issue(Vol. 16) Special, Virtual DoLLs, similar comment was made, this time specifically mentioned about the influnce in computer love similation games. If a character is enough to influence future stories, I'd say it is pretty notable. MythSearchertalk 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe the main characters should get articles, then you can make them and follow the suggestions they give to make the articles. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to a List of Oh My Goddess! characters. Unless real-world notability can be established for these individual characters, they do not warrant a separate article under our policies governing notability for fictional characters. Fail that, they should be Deleted, but a merge would be preferable. Eusebeus 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    better: List of Oh My Goddess characters — but I don't care about the exclamation point. --Jack Merridew 13:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Notifiable and verifiable, appears to be a bad-faith (or at least misguided) nom. I quote: "If this succeeds I intend to nominate all the remaining articles. If the characters and episodes are non-notable, neither is the series." Uhh, please don't. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is merely an attempt to establish consensus. -- Cat chi? 14:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    However, they don't establish their notability and have no secondary sources. --Jack Merridew 14:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge due to a lack of real world information and no assertion that it will ever be found. Just as a note to White Cat, even if this ends up as keep, that does not mean that these cannot be merged during a smaller discussion. TTN 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (to others) There is already considerable discussion tipping towards merging at Talk:Oh My Goddess! and Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters. This nom would appear to be an attempted end-run re those discussions. --Jack Merridew 15:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No they should not be merged if they are non-notable. Are suggesting that the result of this AFD should be ignored unless you agree with it? -- Cat chi? 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    The outcome of this discussion does not determine notability ("Notability requires objective evidence"). It also only determines if the articles are kept, merged, or deleted as of this discussion. The separate merge discussion can and still will go on, no matter the outcome of this. TTN 18:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any instance were you can form a complete response without quoting a guideline or policy? Arguments strictly based on policy, guideline or Jimbo himself are quotedly quite weak. In other words you will challenge any consensus till the pages get deleted... -- Cat chi? 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    I must remind you that according to WP:FICT, If these concepts are individually notable and an encyclopedic treatment causes the article on the work itself to become long, then the concepts are split into succinct sub-articles that maintain such an encyclopedic treatment. However, material should be organized into complete articles and presented correctly; the existence of numerous small sub-articles can lead to disorganization and unbalanced coverage.
    To a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as an extension of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article. Such sub-articles should clearly identify themselves as fictional elements of the parent work within the lead section, and editors should still strive to provide real-world content.
    And obviously if all merged, the main article would be way too long, so a sperated character page is surely advisible. MythSearchertalk 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bendandy: MythSearcher has established the independent notability of that character above. For the others, weak keep to give the oportunity for establishing same for the others. —Quasirandom 18:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and not merge. WP is not paper, several articles are better than one.  Grue  18:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. The nominator is clearly throwing a tantrum over the proposed merger of these articles and has put them up for deletion, thus disrupting Wikipedia, to illustrate a point. However, there should be no prejudice on merger of these articles. --Farix (Talk) 19:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again what point am I illustrating? What is in bad faith here? Why MUST they be merged? If they are non-notable they should be deleted. If they are notable why was the reason for the merge suggestion? -- Cat chi? 19:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    The bad faith is that you put these articles up for deletion in order to thwart a merger discussion. The point you are making is that you own these articles and will "take your ball and go home" because you're not get your way in the merger discussion. --Farix (Talk) 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So seeking a more general opinion (sanity check if you will) from a more wide variety of users rather than surrendering to the imposed consensus by few dedicated users whose entire contribution is the mass removal of articles is what you call pointy... Please file a case at WP:ANB/I then. -- Cat chi? 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    If you actually wanted a more general opinion, then you would have filed a RfC. You know full well about the dispute resolution process and know that AfD is not part of it. That is why this AfD is a pointy exercise. --Farix (Talk) 20:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't a matter of "disagreement" and hence there isn't a dispute to seek a resolution for. I am merely taking the notability concern to AFD seeking a more general opinion. Stop accusing me. If you must, file it to WP:ANB/I. -- Cat chi? 20:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with the articles' notability, but with the merger proposal. Non-notable articles can be merged into a notable article, which is why the merger discussion should continue without further harassment and disruption. Wikipeda's deletion policy encourages that a merger be looked into before an article is put up for deletion. You disagree with the merger and you are not getting your way in the discussion, thus you set up this AFD. It is also not necessary to take it to WP:ANI as it doesn't require immediate action from an administrator. If you really think it does, then you should ask for it. --Farix (Talk) 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of non-notable topics is also non-notable. Oh My Goddess! characters aren't worth a mention if they are all non-notable. If they are notable, then thats an entirely different universe. I really like this concept of being name-called a "WP:POINT violator" when I seek a deletion discussion of some articles. But when others do so without a discussion or even despite a discussion they are given medals instead. -- Cat chi? 20:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The character is the main character of the series. Showers 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Looks like it meets notability. I'm not sure that a lot of good is going to come from this staying open. Without judging either side, it looks like it's drifted from AFD to a conflict that should probably be handled elsewhere.--Cube lurker 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep nonsense nom. JuJube 22:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mythsearcher. Edward321 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone wanna bet cat'll have a tantrum and threaten to quit? Anyone? HalfShadow 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Lets bet, I wager $210 that he wouldn't. -- Cat chi? 00:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    You do understand that your nomination have no point at all in supporting the deletion, right? You gave no reason of why the characters are non-notable, and you just keep saying they are non-notable. If you have a point, say it. Tell us why it is non-notable. According to WP:Notability, notability is presumed, yet you just presumed it to be non-notable from the very beginning, and that alone is bad faith. MythSearchertalk 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply relayed the merge/redirectification (a kind of defacto deletion) rationale I was thrown at. If I have done so inadequately, people throwing it the non-notability claim are present in this discussion and had every opportunity to have done a better job than I have. I am allowed to make nominations contradicting my personal views on any topic and this isn't the first time I have done so. Notability is a serious mater and the intention of this nomination merely is the gathering of a more broad opinion. If the consensus is a delete, thats fine; if the consensus is a keep that is also fine. The articles I nominated for deletion are mostly my creation. I spent a great deal of time, effort and resources on them. I would not have created them had I felt that they were not worth the effort for any reason. So this is FAR from bad faith - just a sanity check on my part (if nothing else). -- Cat chi? 07:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Belldandy has been in existence for 20 years and counting. While the article itself lacks out-of-universe information, there has to be plenty of that somewhere. KyuuA4 05:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at most we merge, but deletion is pretty much out of the question, per WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per MythSearcher, Farix, and others above. This is a tantrum nomination. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We can discuss the merge later. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The information in the articles, although not necessarily notable, could be seen as sub-articles of Oh My Goddess#Cast, and provides background information and context for the main article.
    It would be impractical to merge all of the information to either the subarticle or to a list, but that is a discussion for another day here or here.
    It may be helpful if everybody on this discussion would provide input at those discussions. G.A.S 06:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yehoshua Sofer. --Aarktica 19:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abir (martial art)[edit]

Abir (martial art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The following concern was expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Abir (martial art): "I think this article is realy strange. Probably you should ask you if it's not a hoax, please take a look on this link.--Kimdime69 20:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)" And indeed upon deeper examination of the article it appears to be nothing more that one paragraph about a non-notable individual (with lots of photos of himself) who has introduced "Abir®" in Israel (as his website states a few times, [37] [38]) as a disguised version of the Korean martial art of Kuk Sool Won. 95% of the rest of the article and the sources it cites is tangential information and vignettes that deal with with this or that group of Jews who fought or engaged in warfare during the long stretch of Jewish history, and not directly related to "Abir®" at all in any direct way. Thus this article violates WP:NOR as well as WP:NOT#OR; WP:NOT#ADVERTISING; WP:NOT#MYSPACE; and based on the information provided by User:Kimdime69 it may also be a violation of WP:HOAX. IZAK 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. Bradford44 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletions. IZAK 08:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (most of the "Jewish history" stuff) and Redirect to Kuk Sool Won. IZAK 12:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This subject is overall unique, some aspects may be not original and this info should be put inside the article itself. We do not delete articles because certain aspects are copies of other articles. If the subject has acquired Notability in of its own being, as the references and citations make the case, we will not delete it. Wikipedia is not censorship.--יודל 13:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least 90% of the article and all of it if nobody can proove that Abir is notable. Erase the images too--Kimdime69 13:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Israeli newspaper profile on this subject, so the Notability factor is not the issue here anymore.--יודל 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What needs 2ndary sourcing is the history, and claims like protect in the prime minister. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i will have to comb through 3 long newspaper articles and 2 lengthy discussions on Martial arts community boards, and three other wikipedia languages that have this article. This will take some time to source properly, but the overall article should not be deleted because 2 lines aren't yet sourced, give it some time and it will happen.--יודל 14:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are examples not the only ones. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is this subject is maybe badly written this is no way a reason to delete. we can fix it but AFd's should not serve as a tool to get articles fixed.--יודל 14:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't nominate it, but since we are here i'm raising the point. I've Added some cite requests--Nate1481( t/c) 14:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in desperate need of sourcing and severe pruning. JJL 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and i do my part, i am not familiar with Martial Arts, but i am doing whatever i can to edit it regarding my knowledge of the Hebrew language, which the he wiki has the identical article. Thanks--יודל 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm going against my better judgment on this. I would like to see if someone other than the major contributor can verify all of the claims or find better sources apart from the main Abir website. The article states Yehoshua Sofer learned the Korean arts against his will and pictures of him doing said art are carefully listed as "Non-Abir technique". --Ghostexorcist 13:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very doubtful, at best--Inyan 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless it can get some 2ndary sources, that my major concern the rest has been cleared up. after disscusion & modification change to Move see below. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yossiea (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I guess every country needs a Pankration. This sounds like Kuk Sool Won given an Israeli veneer and false history, but it's as legitimate as many other martial arts, I suppose; even Kuk Sool Won and Hwa Rang Do are basically Hapkido plus in the latter case a mystical tale, and Hapkido is Daito-ryu Aikijutsu (or, "I remember Tae Kwon Do when it used to be called Shotokan Karate"). Barely notable. JJL 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the article is some meandering thread of various historical warriors, having nothing to do with the current martial arts technique, and what remains needs better sourcing if it is to be acceptable to wikipedia. Avi 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The historical meandering should perhaps be added to appropriate articles on the history of the relevant groups though. -- Medains 15:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the burden of proof has not been met. Many claims in the article are POV (and wrong: the history is counterfactual), though, and I'd be happy to delete it -- but an article on this subject should probably exist, and this does ahave some content to work with. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a lack of independent, secondary source verification. The issue at hand is not whether the lineage is true or not, but if enough independent sources are available to reliably verify information. This is not so at present, and thus there is no evidence that the subject merits encyclopedic treatment. VanTucky Talk 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's ignore for a moment that the whole thing is an incredible fabrication. This is a one-man martial art; even if it did not have the silly made-up history it would not be notable. Possibly he deserves a one-line mention in Kuk Sool Won if he really is the only person not of East Asian descent to be a master in it[39] (I have no capacity to evaluate this claim myself).--Pharos 18:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
why not mention this in the article itself, the guy has Television stories, Newspaper stories, and community board discussions about him and his work. I don't think Wikipedia has to vouch for the truth in subjects we only can report what it is out there, and the subject is out there.--יודל 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepas per IZAK. His main 'source' and 'proof' (User:Kimdime69) for debunking the abir article is from a blog and the emotionally written blog post is certainly not a reliable source. Article might need to be cleaned up, but a poorly written article is not a reason for a deletion. Other 'delete' comments above are in fact OR judgements of the subject, not sourced 'criticism'. --Shuki 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of "proof" of notability is squarely on the article, not its debunkers. The problem is there are no reliable source that this is a notable system, just a couple of human interest stories about a man and his invented martial art that has virtually no following.--Pharos 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: Shuki, your vote is confusing (what does "Keep as per IZAK" mean?) as I nominated the article for deletion and to be redirected, but not "keep" in its present form at all. IZAK 08:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Everything on the website of the organization that sponsors Abir points to it being a recent creation. The history is merely a set of interesting aspects of Jewish History, that can be utilized for the story. (This is par for martial arts history.) Searching Black Belt online didn't come up with any hits. I'm going to redefine "notability" here. What percentage of the population in Israel have trained in this system? jonathon 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would indeed be a new approach to the definition. Does it apply to other sports as well? to politics? to religion? I can think of quite a number of small groups of great interest that would not be in WP under that definition.
I was grasping at straws, to justify keeping it. If it is an authentic, historical, indigenous, martial art, there should be more than two training halls in Israel for it. There are three or four chains of martial art studios in the town I live in. Each chain has at least three locations.jonathon 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the current version, I gather it is the external link NRG from NRG (Maariv), is it just a human interest story, or does it attest to actual notability--could you translate a key sentence or two?
It looks like your run of the mill human interest story to me. jonathon 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep personally I think that the system is fake, if such a system ever existed a lot of borrowed techniques have been used to pad out whatever remains of the historical system. Going through the You-Tube videos and some of the techniques look awfully like Jujutsu, and others like Shorinji Kempo, the techniques based on the letters of the Hebrew alphabet is pure bad 1970's Kung Fu movie. As an instructor although he looks impressive enough performing the techniques on video, in one he uses the sleight of hand of forcing the uke to stop mid attack to offer a salute breaking the uke's flow and concentration. Despite my reservations about the system and the man I'm still inclined to keep. This is based on the notability based on the system and the man being covered in Israeli television and newspaper articles, also the rabbinical endorsement is probably genuine. The article can probably do with pruning, the history of Jewish warriors can probly be spun off into an article about the Jewish warrior tradition and what remains rewritten with qualifiers that the claims made are the claims of the organisation and not an externally verified truth. KTo288 00:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much, but I do have a small amount of info about Jews that served in ancient chinese armies. It could be added to the proposed Jewish Warrior tradition article. Other editors more knowledgeable in the Torah and Midrash could add passages pertaining to the subject. Just a suggestion. --Ghostexorcist 00:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for "Jews served in ancient Chinese armies". (English, Hebrew, Aramaic, Chinese, or Japanese will do.) Jewish Warrior Tradition might be more suitable for the history in this article. jonathon 02:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do. I thought others would automatically assume I had citations for the information. It is in English, but the sources were written by Chinese scholars and scholars of Chinese. Keep in mind it is a small amount of info, but still worth mentioning. --Ghostexorcist 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there's such a thing as a coherent "Jewish Warrior Tradition", but maybe there could be an article on Jewish military history.--Pharos 02:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pharos: I agree with you that the idea of having an article about Jewish military history is an excellent idea, as in no way should such a broad topic ever have been allowed to be "hijacked" by the "Abir®" club stub. IZAK 08:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you take what you want before the AfD concludes so that it dosen't affect the out come, I wouldn't know where to start or I'd try. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Nate1481: Great suggestion. It's DONE. I have taken the relevant sections from the article and added material from others to create a more definitive, balanced, NPOV and historically accurate article about combat by Jews/Jewish combat in the new Jewish military history article, which will now also be the lead article for Category:Jewish army units. Thank you, IZAK 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed overlap that didn't really belong and have added Jewish military history to 'see also' --Nate1481( t/c) 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and well done IZAK, the Abir article is looking rather naked without the historical window dressing. KTo288 14:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Yehoshua Sofer and restructure the material accordingly. The independent external references appear to be about the man, not the technique, and it is the man who appears to be notable here. When the technique becomes independently notable, that would be the time to have an article on it. The Yehoshua Sofer article can say something about the technique, but its claims to have an historical basis etc. etc. don't appear to have any independent sourcing and a private website is not a reliable source for such claims. The article could note briefly that the individual claims that his system has a basis in Jewish history and perhaps discuss in a couple of sentences, but there is no source basis for articulating the system or its history in detail this extensive. --Shirahadasha 14:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting suggestion I could live with that but the article will need cutting down. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with move proposal - individual appears notable, but the "martial art" itself lacks verifiable sources. Bradford44 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Thats a realy good suggestion--Kimdime69 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea As per my keep per Izak's Afd, well, IMO, the Afd and the reason was poor and this convinced me to support keeping the article. --Shuki 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move has been made, and the easy bit has been done, the hard bit is how much of the detail about the martial art should be trimmed. KTo288 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have erroneously closed this AfD as "no consensus" after two days, because it somehow popped up on WP:AFD/Old and I didn't look at the dates. I'm undoing this closure now. Sorry. Sandstein 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the move was a good thing but now the debate is hopelessly confused. I suggest closing the debate, allowing a bit of time for the article to get sorted out and start a fresh debate.Peter Rehse 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article lacks any real secondary source verification, and appears to also suffer from notability. Atari400 09:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As KTo288 notes this article has already been moved to Yehoshua Sofer. Although I proposed this move I believe action should have awaited the outcome of this discussion, and editors are entitled to object. Best, --Shirahadasha 16:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, though the move (rename) may have been premature, I endorse it as the best option. --MPerel 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I strongly recommend that this AfD be closed, now that the titular article no longer exists. If appropriate, it should be reopened at the new location. Bradford44 15:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought during Ramadan by Muslims[edit]

List of battles fought during Ramadan by Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Dubious intersection of topics leading to an implicit WP:COATRACK conclusion. WP:POVFORK of List of wars in the Muslim world. Article was originally cribbed from this source though copyvio is difficult to argue at this stage. Article could be improved if scope and title were changed but in present state seems only designed to prove a point. Dhartung | Talk 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although the title may seem at first blush to be really narrow, and the author would do well by adding a note of explanation about the significance, this would be similar to something like "List of battles fought during Christmas by Christians" (Valley Forge, Christmas bombing of Vietnam, etc). Many of us non-Muslims know that Ramadan is a month of all-day fasting and other religious observances. Thus, I don't see this as part of a series of articles. Mandsford 12:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mandsford's convincing argument. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mandsford--Victor falk 04:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish keep. As it currently stands, it's a pretty sorry-looking thing, but it might be possible to improve this to a more functional article. The fact that a battle took place during Ramadan is, to the best of my memory, a significant thing, since there's slightly more than just a fast required during that month - so this article should contain that information. As it currently stands, though, the definition of "battle" is a bit shaky, since we have actual battles (such as Badr), full-scale wars which have lasted for several years (Iraq, Yemen), terrorist strikes (USS Cole) and a sort of hand-waving at the Algerian Civil War. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear POV pushing. Besides, there are no rules in love and war. SolidPlaid 08:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Cubs all-time roster[edit]

This article is just a direct, long copy of Category:Chicago Cubs players with no real new information (other than playing time, which the articles all contain). Seems to serve little purpose to me. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete This could probably fall under WP:CSD#A3. It's a huge link-farm with no content, and serves no purpose that the category can't provide. Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete redundant ffm 13:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First, if this roster is up for deletion, the other 26 existing MLB rosters should also be up for deletion, as they contain essentially the same info. Second, I strongly suggest people read Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes before commenting on this discussion.--Fabrictramp 13:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This is just like other list articles as well as the other all-time baseball roster articles. It includes years played and positions which the category cannot. It also includes red-link players which the category cannot. If anything, this should stay and the category should go. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First of all, speedy delete does not apply, because this list has the years and positions played, which keeps it from being a list consisting solely of links. Expanding a bit on what Wknight94 said, if you look at the example list given in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, you'll see that virtually nothing in that list is included that isn't in either a category or the individual articles. While I normally avoid making the argument "hey, this other article is this way" in an AfD discussion, I'm going to assume that because the list is used as a prominent example in an editing guideline that it is okay. So what is different?
The editors who have argued for deletion have discounted the value of the years and positions played, but to anyone remotely interested in baseball (which is the type of person who will look at this page), this is important information. Consensus was reached over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball several months ago that these, along with Hall of Fame membership, which still needs to be added to this list, were important things that would makes these rosters valuable information that did not duplicate the category. (As an aside, I was preparing to revisit that discussion over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball because some editors would also like to add flag icons indicating each player's country of origin.)
For those who are still arguing that everything in this roster is either in the category or the individual articles (which ignores the value of the redlinked entries), I quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, talking about categories vs. lists: "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the other. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other." --Fabrictramp 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For all the reasons mentioned above. Spanneraol 14:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm undecided about the existence of these lists, but I don't like the linking of them on the individual pages of ever player who appears on the list. It's particularly jarring with franchises that have moved, in that the player in question is linked with a city/team for which he never played. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally agree with your frustration there. The See also sections of baseball players have gone out of control. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One suggestion would be to take out the links to the all-time rosters on the individual player pages, but leave in the team categories. On the category pages, have a link to the all-time rosters. That would clean up the player page, but still allow readers easy access to the all-time roster if they are interested. --Fabrictramp 15:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a reasonable suggestion. For better or worse, franchises in baseball keep the records and the association with their former homes. (Full disclosure: I'm a SF Giants fan and we are proud to claim players for the NY Giants as part of our history.) -- BPMullins | Talk 17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not even sure it is necessary. If I want to look at the Cardinals' all-time roster, I'm not going to the Jason Isringhausen page. I'm going to St. Louis Cardinals. No link is necessary from individual players to the all-time rosters IMHO. And frankly, I think the team player categories should be deleted. They create as much category clutter as the old All-Star Game categories (before they were mercifully deleted). The rosters provide more information and are more complete. (Although the cool new image-searching tool works off categories so that would be unfortunate). —Wknight94 (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to like categories more than most people, but at a minimum, I think categories are useful for players who played for defunct franchises. There's no all-time roster for the Detroit Wolverines, for example (at least not yet), so Category:Detroit Wolverines players has value. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True but I'd prefer it were replaced by an all-time roster when someone gets to creating one. I don't know if removing the categories entirely has been discussed before. I may be alone in that thinking. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're not alone. The categories don't seem to serve the purpose in this case. Let me know if you decide to tilt at that windmill. BPMullins | Talk 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The overlap between category and list is incomplete, as many of the lists include red links and the separate categories exist in cases where the teams have moved or changed names (for instance, see Category:New York Highlanders players and Category:New York Yankees players. Caknuck 15:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First of all, the Chicago Cubs all-time roster is not "a direct, long copy of Category:Chicago Cubs players", as said at the top of this post. By the other side, this list serves as a complementary information source on the team's history and also serves as a complement to the List of MLB players, which, like the baseball categories, is destined exclusively for players with wiki articles. About the lists, an existing red link can indicate that a new article is needed. When a Wikipedian writes an article, it is common practice to link key topics pertinent to an understanding of the subject, even if those topics don't have an article on Wikipedia yet. Please see *. I also believe that a red link is a way to encourage any individual or member of the wiki community to cooperate in the WikiProject_Baseball. Thanks. MusiCitizen 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I agree with MusiCitizen, the list with its "Red Links" may encourage others to contribute articles on those players, something a category can not do. I have to admit though, I think that this "List" lacks subtance. I believe that some minor information should be added after the players name and years played. What I mean is, the position of the player should be included and the players highlight. But, that my humble opinion. Tony the Marine 23:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Position is already there. But your point is taken - the list definitely needs some formatting help. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per MusiCitizen. Patken4 01:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. WaltonOne 10:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space Hijackers[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable anarchist (or as they call themselves "anarchitect") group; article lists no third-party coverage. Delete; I only do not request speedy deletion for lack of a claim of notability because the article has escaped attention since the year 2003 when it was created. - Mike Rosoft 11:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does it really take that much effort to click on a link to the homepage of the subject and find, right before your eyes, reams of evidence of non-trivial independent third party coverage?
I would expect that such a serious matter as nominating an article for deletion would merit a little more consideration; this nomination fails basic standards of due diligence. Skomorokh incite 11:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete. In reviewing the sources provided, One is the site of the group itself (Unsuitable, as a primary source), another is a dead link (the anarchitecture week site), and a third is Youtube (not generally considered a reliable source). Some google hits such as a Wired article herehint at the group selling a tank (!) at auction in September, while others feature a blog for the group. Yes, I can confirm that the group exists - but is it notable? I cannot determine that from the information available to me. If there are indeed sources beyond those I can find on Google, please add them to the article - that would satisfy Notability and probably result in the article being Kept. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as no progress has been made to provide additional sources, I must recommend that the article be Deleted, with no prejudice against the creation of a properly sourced version in the future. I have changed my above recommendation accordingly. The rationale still applies, in that the article fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argument for NOT deleting Personally I think that the page is a useful point of reference, I came here from the Circle Line Party entry and would have been left wanting without it. I do not believe it is invalid "becuase it has not been modified since 2003" - in fact there is an argument that if it has not been modified then it is a perfect article. It gives useful links to find out more and as such I feel it should be left intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.230.248.1 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2007
I moved the above misplaced comment of User:129.230.248.1 from this AfD's talk page with the edit summary as the !vote. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivish (culture)[edit]

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

This is a poorly-written stub that cites no sources (because there are none) and could be mistaken as even meaning to slander Haredim who are non-Hasidim. "Yeshivish" is perhaps a slang word, and there is already a Yeshivish article for that. If it is another way of describing non-Hasidic Haredim, then add this paragraph there. But there is absolutely no "yeshivish" "culture" just as there is no "Chasidish culture" or "Modern Orthodox culture" etc etc (but yes, there is Hasidic Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism.) The article (actually it's one silly paragraph) makes wild claims that the term applies to American Orthodox Jews in yeshivas, and if so, then it could have been added to the yeshiva article or to the Orthodox Judaism article. While one can speak of Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism, they may perhaps be called "cultures" although Judaism is a religion not a culture. This article, the notion it tries to convey, and the way it tries to convey it, is absurd and fits nowhere because it verges on the vulgar and there is no way it could ever be quantified especially in a serious encyclopedia. It violates WP:NOR, WP:CITE, WP:NEO and borders on WP:LIBEL. IZAK 08:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles contain useful info. I do not have any preference which one should merge into which one, but please do not delete this page this discussion is based on.--יודל 12:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yossiea (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is more definition than article and I disagree with the definition; it can not be supported by sources. If there is anything of value it should be transferred to Wiktionary, but I see nothing salvageable and or/ it does not add to what already exists. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Useful commenter above, please read WP:USEFUL, which lists a number of arguments to be avoided. Burntsauce 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. This Afd is exagerated and frankly unwarranted. OR and CITE are not legitimate justifications for an Afd, merely reasons to add templates which encourage article impovement and breathing space for a month. 'Borders on libel'? Uh, not. And what happened to AGF? I've heard the term being used widely (not as slang) and I think that an article or at least paragraph to explain this, I dunno, sub-group would be welcome as an additional way to expand American Jews or 'Modern Orhtodox' since that is the context I've heard it mostly being used. Again, this current stub is OR, so what? Add a prod before killing it, encourage improvement not stifle it when it does not fit your mindset. Anyway, the somewhat similar Hardal started out the same way. --Shuki 23:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The article describes (or should describe) a notable sub-culture of Orthodox Jews. I think there is what to say on it. --Eliyak T·C 08:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced opinion. `'Míkka 22:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. 'Yeshivish' describes a notable group of Haredi Jews of Eastern European origin with distinctive religious practices and way of life, and I don't think sources will be difficult. (See, as a quick example, [40].) I agree the present article is unsourced and poorly written but notability of the topic, not quality of the present article, is the issue at AFD. I would support renaming the article to e.g. Yeshivish Jews or Yeshivish Judaism. I agree "culture" is not used for any other branch of Judaism and I don't believe there's any evidence this is the way different branches of Orthodox Judaism are normally characterized. Also, I believe Yeshivish editors, who should not be discouraged from working on the article, would likely object to having their religion described this way (the nominator and some of the delete votes appear to have this concern), and I believe their views deserve some respect since part of the purpose of the article is to convey something about their worldview as well as notable outside perspectives on it. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and incorporate useful material into Yeshivish. I agree with much of both IZAK's and Shirahadasha's opposite perspectives. There is more than just linguistics to "Yeshivish", but the right place to expand this is in the other existing article. --MPerel 05:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article and the "Yeshivish" article are about two different topics and I believe this will make a merger difficult. "Yeshivish" as used in this article is a synonym the for "Litvish" or "Lithuanian Yeshiva" style of Judaism, while the Yeshivish article refers to a Hebrew-English Creole or dialect. The two are not the same. A "Yeshivish Jew" doesn't have to speak any English at all, and many who live in Israel don't. Many who speak English do so in a Yeshivish style, but by no means all. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see your point. Perhaps one solution might be to recreate an article called Litvish Judaism, in contrast to Hasidic Judaism, that covers the more cultural aspects you're talking about. --MPerel 02:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article was created by "copy-and-pasting from original yeshivish" - (see first edit summary) - merge back? Chesdovi 11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine[edit]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These medical schools lack notability. Whilst many sources mention each one, coverage is not detailed and in-depth. A teaching college normally gains notability through the recognition of it's teaching and research. The articles are also being used as a soapbox and a great deal of content fails WP:NPOV. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 10:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the Notability, NPOV and Soapbox criteria mentioned above:

Caribbean Medical University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
St Matthews University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
University of Health Sciences Antigua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As well as the original author of each article, I've also notified the top 5 contributors (including anon IPs) given by http://vs.aka-online.de/wppagehiststat/ for each article (link from WP:AfD), except for one retired user. However, I have not sent multiple notifications to those authors who appear in the top 5 for more than one article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for University of Health Sciences Antigua, please see the previous discussion here, which was closed as Keep. Leuko 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above rationale. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 11:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles are misleading. They are often written by and present views of those "in power," and even prevent current students and school officials from editing. Certain third party websites and forums are more informative. And of course, calling and visiting the school is the best. DrGladwin 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC) User may have conflict of interest. See Talk.[reply]
  • Delete per rationale above, soapbox and propaganda reasons. Buzybeez 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not in a position to take sides over a battle between different universities. This article is nothing but propaganda. Wikipedia shouldn't endorse itself as a foreign medical school credential imposing agency. There are many other agencies who are qualified to verify medical credentials through official means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangster001 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) — Kangster001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Nothing meaningful provided. These articles are one-sided and don’t reveal the entire image of the medical school. They are more like editing battle grounds. UISKuwait 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) — UISKuwait (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete Since, as a new user, I am unable to add my opinion to the main page, I would like to voice my opinion to delete the pages in question here. I agree with the reasoning that the page lacks notability. Most of the references are lists, many of which do not even relate to the school or its oversight directly. The others are also indirect or self published references with only one reference that even directly addresses the main school in question. It appears that there are two diametrically opposed groups here who either love or hate this school and its page is being used more for propaganda than real information. --Stevemackey 20:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzybeez (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I agree with UISKuwait Drouch 22:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a college is of obvious encycolpedic interest. I'm not yet convinced that these are primarily scams and not colleges that should be dropped, despite the presence of much smoke. JJL 14:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This school is notable as an educational institution in and of itself. Andrew73 14:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With over 30 citations and mentions in WP:RS, this school most certainly meets WP:N. Any other perceived issues are not a rationale for deletion, and can be worked out on the article's talk page. Leuko 16:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Of the 31 citations, 5 are self published (one is listed twice), 10 make no mention of the college, and 13 are lists (2 are listed twice). Of the remaining 3 references, one is a passing mention in an article about another college, one is a BBC article about the college and the third I am unable to access. There is only any depth of coverage in at most two of the references, and 10 of them make no mention of the college, but are being used to support WP:OR within the article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can imagine deleting an article about a college hardly anyone had heard of. These schools don't fit that pattern, since there are many reports about them. If there is a controversy about accreditation, Wikipedia can write about it calmly and neutrally, using evidence from reliable sources. EdJohnston 16:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are schools of note and popular interest in their home countries. Many US students attend them, as well. They are clearly worthy of this encyclopedia. Bstone 17:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For the above reasons. These articles have more references and sources and press than most articles on the rest of wikipedia. Cheers, PaddyM 19:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, there is no question that colleges are of notable interest to this project. Burntsauce 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From WP:NOTE ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail", merely appearing in a list of institutions is not significant coverage. The majority of references for these institutions are merely that, the institution appearing in a list of similar institutions. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 14:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have looked at all the references for SCIMD-COM, and some statements made in the article based on those references. The majority of references are either (a) self published, (b) lists giving no significant coverage of the subject, (c) criteria from which inferences are being drawn WP:NOR. One reference mentions the subject superficially whilst discussing another medical school, one I can not check (requires subscription) and one appears to be a valid in-depth coverage of the college. Here's the breakdown by reference number in the current article:
1, self published
2,3 list of UK companies
4 FAIMER's IMED is an international list of medical schools based on data provided by their relevant governments
5,6 self published
7 =4 (list)
8 WHO list of medical schools
9 list of colleges not recognised by the State of Oregon
10 UNESCO list of schools
11 self published
12 GMC list "Private UK based medical colleges"
13 GMC list "Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC"
14 The only reference accessible without payment that has any in-depth coverage
15 Makes no reference to the college, but has a link to the list used as ref 16
16 ASIC list of "organisations which have been brought to our attention offering degrees and we suggest you undertake detailed research before embarking on a programme of study."
17 UK list of institutions approved to teach foreign students for student visa / immigration purposes, which contains no reference to the college
18 UK visa requirements, no reference to the college
19 Statement relating to the meaning of inclusion on list at ref 17, no reference to the college
20 Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, Physician Licensee Application, makes no reference to the college
21 International Medical Schools Disapproved by the State of California list makes no reference to the college, there is no reason for this reference to be present in the article
22 Medical Schools Recognized by the Medical Board of California list makes no reference to the college
23 Medical Licensing Board of Indiana list of QUESTIONABLE FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOLS
24 Kansas State Board of Healing Arts list of approved and disapproved schools makes no reference to the college
25 Kansas 65-2873. "License to practice healing arts by examination; prerequisites; postgraduate study; use of title and degree." makes no reference to the college
26 State of Maine list of "Unaccredited Post-Secondary Educational Institutions"
27 New York State Education Department, Office of the Professions, Division of Professional Licensing Services, Medicine Unit, License Requirements, Physician makes no reference to the college, also not a valid reference for anything relating to the State of New Jersey
28 Unable to access the reference without payment
29 Mentioned in passing in relation to an investigation into a different medical school, coverage is superficial
30 Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board list of Institutions Whose Degrees are Illegal to Use in Texas
31 self published
Combining information from two or more sources to determine something that none of those sources state directly is WP:OR.
The use of references 17 through 19 to determine that study at the college does not qualify for a UK Student Visa is WP:OR
The use of reference 20 to infer that the MD awarded by the college is not recognised by the State of Alabama is WP:OR
The use of references 21 and 22 to infer that the college has never sought recognition from the State of California is WP:OR
The use of reference 24 and 25, combined with references 1 through 6 to infer that the MD awarded by the college is not recognised by the State of Kansas is WP:OR
Reference 21 appears to be presented in a manner that suggests that the college is "disapproved" by the State of California, when the truth appears to be that the college has never sought approval by that State, this fails WP:NPOV.
All 4 articles are about subjects that lack WP:NOTABILITY, contain WP:OR, are written in a manner that fails WP:NPOV, and are being used as a WP:SOAPBOX. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the vocabulary of the above suggests a strong subconscious reinforcement towards systemic bias. See Countering systemic bias. It is driving WP to be USA-centric by AfD. As for 'educational standards' - maybe (by the same logic) Europe should insist that Americans on vacation must take European driving test before they are allowed to hire cars, because the USA test are so less demanding; or does regional variation not matter when it comes to enjoying oneself? (some of the articles could still do with some improvement but deletion removes that possibility).--Aspro 18:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The inclusion of the school in various lists in various countries that state it is not accredited, not eligible for licensure, etc, is significant coverage since these are official state agencies. As far as WP:OR, the article only contains cited facts written in a neutral way. For example, the article states (supported by ref) that the school is not listed on the DFES Register. In addition it states that no student will be granted a visa if studying at a college not listed on the register. Both are true facts, supported by WP:RS. There is no synthesis in the article, and no WP:OR, merely facts. Leuko 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When you take two referenced facts, and combine them to draw a conclusion, that's WP:OR. Combining the presence or absence of the institution in list a on website A with the wording of rule b on website B to determine fact C is therefore WP:OR. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 00:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I disagree when you say "neutral" way. For example, the article on Caribbean Medical University is clearly biased. Sure, there is no tangible WP:RS supporting its attempt to get accredited, but so what? Visit the school campus or call the administration and see what I mean. These articles reflect nothing but a bunch of WP:RS from external websites posted by different people supporting or opposing certain claims. In simple terms, it's like fighting a court case. In the end, there is nothing meaningful and informative. The editor with the most WP:RS, fancier editing programs, and more administrators on their side always seems to win. DrGladwin 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, WP is not a battleground, so I don't know what these sides and winning are. WP is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia, where anything must be previously published in WP:RS. Therefore any statements, such as attempts to get accredited, which are not published in WP:RS are WP:OR. Leuko 13:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: “WP is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia?” Then why are some editors threatened by bans? I also disagree with your definition of WP:RS. The WP:RS you mention are nothing but a bunch of lists and tables that don’t make sense as stand-alone pieces of information. When were these WP:RS published? Are they even valid now? You can phrase your sentences anyway and provide WP:RS out of context to support it. For example, according to the University of Health Sciences Antigua page, schools listed with the WHO “must have their degree validated.” Now, what kind of intentions did the author have? Good? Or bad? No one knows. Except that the author had WP:RS to prove it. I personally know UHSA students rotating in NY hospitals, but I don’t have WP:RS to back my claims. Also look at the St. Chris article. It’s reduced to nothing but accreditation information and/or what the school isn’t and couldn’t do. Any intelligent person can recognize these articles as biased. DrGladwin 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise to the nominator, who made have done so in good faith, but in light of the repeated and extensive attempts to "game" this page, it is clear that, whether as a school, a college, a degree mill, or whatever, there is notability present. Accordingly, IMHO, the article should be kept. My suspcions is that many of the deletionist comments are being or will be made by those who want the whole business swept under the metaphorical mat. Or by the Cabal. (Attempt at humour, there: humour, Ah say!!) -- Simon Cursitor 06:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no interest in the subject myself, and I don't care if these colleges are diploma mills or excellent teaching colleges or whatever in between, my concern is for the integrity of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a consumer watchdog, it's an encyclopaedia. The authors of these articles are not writing encyclopaedic articles, they're writing WP:SOAPBOX articles. All four articles are heavily biased and fail any test of WP:NPOV. The assertion of notability in all cases seems to be "it's a college that it appears in lists of colleges". Being a college or appearing in a list of colleges is not notability. From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" - appearance in a list is not addressing the subject directly in detail, and self published references (whether the website still exists or not) don't help to establish notability. Of 31 references cited by the most substantial of the 4 articles, 13 are simply an entry in a list, 10 make no reference to the article subject, and 5 are self published. One mentions the college in passing whilst discussing another establishment, one I can not access and only one appears to have any significant coverage. However, we don't create an article for every BBC news story. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Aspro, you are 100% correct when saying "a strong subconscious reinforcement towards systemic bias." And DMcMPO11AAUK, your reasoning and logical approach to these articles, clearly as a 3rd party with no bias, is commendable. I'm happy to see someone fighting for what's right. These articles are nothing but drama and smokescreens, along the lines of competing cliques engaging in edit wars to show who's better. WP should not be a battleground for this childish activity, nor for being a consumer watchdog. Highly doubtful these articles would gain entry into a reputable printed enclyclopedia. I endorse DMcMPO11AAUK's well-reasoned, well-researched comments. Buzybeez 15:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Except as a student of St. Christopher's, you may have a conflict of interest, and you're endorsement may be seen in this light. As far as the arguments themselves, multiple international states and countries stating that these schools are unaccredited/fraudulent/unlicenseable is notable. If someone feels that the articles do not meet WP:NPOV, then they should be copyedited, and this is not a valid rationale for deletion. But as far as WP:NPOV goes, the policy requires that two opposing viewpoints be given the same treatment and weight. However, there is only one valid viewpoint which is backed by WP:RS here - that these schools are unaccredited. WP:NPOV does not forbid the inclusion of cited negative material. Leuko 21:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Leuko, I can't talk about all schools that were included in this nomination, however St. Matthew's University is accredited by the Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine and recognized by the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation. The same body that accredited Saba University, and AUC [[45]]. Drouch 22:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the AfD closer. For background, I hope that the closer of this AfD will also take a look at an earlier AfD debate on University of Health Sciences Antigual, where many of the same issues were raised. Just to clarify, I have voted 'Keep' above. My overview of the Delete voters is that they are unhappy with the social process surrounding these articles, and they are afraid they are collecting negative information. I don't know exactly how to respond, except that when WP stands on principle it usually tries to *keep* articles that appear notable, regardless of how difficult they are to maintain. Since I haven't studied these comments carefully, I can't refute what they say about the difficulty of maintenance. EdJohnston 22:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Leuko: Leuko, I am sure that you can recognize that if being a St. Christopher's student is a conflict of interest, then yourself, as a competing foreign medical student should be a conflict of interest as well. Therefore, your opinion should be given equal weight to Buzybeez's. I feel these entries should be deleted as they are not notable and only receive so much attention because of the aggressive internet campaigns waged by offshore medical schools. Listings do not qualify as international notability. Stevemackey 11:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 18:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton H. Wallace (photographer)[edit]

Clinton H. Wallace (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He takes pictures of people at parties (here). He "interviews" minor celebs for videos posted at Youtube (try Google). He's taken the stills for some obscure movies (here). He's the executive producer for Cielo Drive (running time six minutes). I wish his career well, but right now he's clearly NN. -- Hoary 09:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 09:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade[edit]

List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While certainly a good basketball player, this is basically a too-detailed list of obscure statistics about a young basketball player who has an unsure place in history at this point. Violates WP:IINFO among other guidelines. This is just overkill, and is easily summarized in his main article. If he becomes washed up or injured in the near future, this page will look very silly. And please don't give arguments like "Dwyane Wade is notable", since he is, but that's not the issue, it's the issue of various stats as his own page is notable. Dannycali 08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Once you remove the really esoteric ones like "7th player in NBA history to average 25 points, eight assists and six rebounds while shooting 50 percent from the floor in a playoff series," this can easily be merged into the main article. --Bongwarrior 09:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless a player is someone like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Doctor J, Larry Bird, etc. Then a separate article for achievements is not needed. KyuuA4 05:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and seems seriously POVish to have it all separate. Bulldog123 20:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with player article after some pruning to remove some of the crufty or less notable statistics. Wisdom89 21:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too detailed is your argument to delete? Who decides what is too detailed? Because you find certain statistics notable, and others not? I find your POV incredible; why not take a gander at List of career achievements by LeBron James, List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant, List of career achievements by Michael Jordan, etc. and inform us all of how those pages are too detailed. Poor argument here to have the article delete. In fact, if this article is deleted, they might as well all be deleted. Zodiiak 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First off, I'd like to note that the above user is the primary editor on said page, with a bulk of the edits made. Second, most of these facts/records, are just too trivial to be on this site. This is an encyclopedia, it is to provide overviews on topics. How a long-winded list on things and trivia on a barely proven, somewhat injury prone basketball player deserves a page like this, I don't think so. I'm not really keen on the Jordan, James and Bryant having their own stats pages either, but since they are more proven, I'll let them be for now. Dannycali 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More proven? All of the stats/records at the Wade page are referenced. Your biases are clear. Zodiiak 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Dannycali meant the players are more proven, not the facts contained in the articles. --Bongwarrior 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, it makes even less sense. Considering the fact that Wade has already won an NBA Title, while LeBron James has not. Zodiiak 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your argument makes the least sense. Although both Wade and James are notable, James is much more notable due to media coverage and a more proven, less injury-plagued (at this point) career, and is much more famous among the mainstream than Wade is. Even backup players win championships, does that mean that Bill Wennington is a better player than LeBron James just b/c he's been on some championship teams? This page needs to go. Dannycali 02:50, 17 October

2007 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Basketball? D-Wade is the top earner when it comes to Ads and Promotions -- he tops LeBron, Kobe, and Melo. LeBron is much more famous among mainstream? Where the hell have you been -- Wade has had the number one selling jersey for two years straight -- over LeBron and Kobe. He dropped in the last year (mainly because of Kobe's jersey change) and now has the number 2 selling jersey. Wow, I don't even know how to explain how ridiculous your statements are -- poorly researched and evidenced. Regarding Wade's championship and his comparison to Wennington -- Not only did Wade win a championship, he was the MVP (over Shaq, which is something no one can say) with the 3rd highest scoring average in Finals History. It takes more than you're absurd POV of "Uh...Well I don't like D-Wade and I like LeBron and Kobe more so I think they're more notable" to actually nominate an article for deletion. Terrible. Can someone who actually knows about the NBA comment on this. Zodiiak 03:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is this, you are dead wrong, and I have been a knowledgeable basketball fan my whole life. I also know what is and isn't notable on Wikipedia, and a big list of obscure stats on a barely proven player, as its own page, is simply not suitable for this project. Can we please close this debate? Dannycali 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Statistics pages like this one can occasionally be justified if they are well-written, unified, and coherent, or if they cross-link a variety of subjects in novel ways. Unfortunately this one looks like a 'data dump'. Some of the firsts appear contrived and unnatural, like the one mentioned by the first commenter. I don't particularly like the stats pages for the other NBA players, either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. EdJohnston 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Pi Oakland[edit]

Sigma Pi Oakland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article of a part of a larger organization, in accordance with Wikipedia is not a directory. See WP:NOT Samwisep86 08:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no notable information in this article that is specific to this particular chapter. --Explodicle 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to any Sigma Pi brothers voting here: You may want to rethink using Wikipedia as a tool for PR. If this stays up, there eventually may be a history section which would contain more than just the proud moments in your chapter's history. You should update the Fall Rush 2006 section of your website first. --Explodicle 15:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It makes no sense for every chapter of every fraternity to have their own entry. -- Otto 18:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nom, this is not necessary nor is it all that notable. Redirecting might not be a bad idea either if it deters the re-creation of this article. Burntsauce 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all above--Victor falk 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Wikpedia rules, and as a personal favor to my brothers at the Beta Pi chapter. I'm not only worried about less favorable moments in history, but also the vandalism during rush weeks, from anybody who get kicked out of a party, anyone who gets denied a bid, etc. It could go unnoticed for a while before being reverted. I don't think you really want an article about you that can be edited by anybody on campus.Mdlutz 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without consensus. Some improvement has been made for WP:RS per WP:HEY, but notability is not yet clearly established. Note that I am not a fan of the series, so I take no stance on this AfD's merits. Bearian 19:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eidelon[edit]

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

Fancruft about a fictional race, with lots of plot summary but without sources demonstrating notability. Gavin Collins 08:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep and Close(as bad faith nom). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. The nominator is under an RfC for forcing other editors (specifically RPG-inclined ones) to fix articles that he deems as unqualified for WP via AfD. Last time I check contributors are not under the authority of deletionists--Lenticel (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gavin.collins has tricked you into defending a extremely weak article, it is one of only two articles he nominated today. By accusing him of bad faith here you have reduced the impact of claiming bad faith in future AfD debates. Unwise. SolidPlaid 00:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow. Now since when did gaming the system became the norm. I believe AfD is not Cleanup. Per Chunky Rice tricking people into doing what you want is bad faith.--Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusingly enough, if you're right and it's a "trick" nomination, that would still be bad faith. As far as I'm concerned, though, both the nominators and the "speedy close/keep" group are being a bit overzealous. Seems like a good merge candidate to me. -Chunky Rice 00:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Gavin.collins takes some care to avoid the obvious. For example, he gamed PC78 into the "overzealous" statement below by talking completely reasonably. No outsider reading that discussion would say this nomination was in bad faith. If Gavin.collins' opposition was smarter, they would have let this one slide. SolidPlaid 00:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting interpretation of events, especially since several other users have concluded that this nomination is in bad faith. I can think for myself thank you very much, and haven't been "gamed" into doing anything; I'm just sorely dissapointed by the attitude of the nominator. PC78 02:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is the lack of notability. Why haven't admins closed this AfD if it is in bad faith? SolidPlaid 02:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you ask them? I'm not interested in your second-guesses. The nominator fails to make a case for the non-notabilty of the subject (which may or may not be the case), and you haven't offered anything yourself besides an inconclusive google search. PC78 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched assiduously. There are no citations on the internet. I reached the end of the internet looking. This is not inconclusive, it is conclusive: no internet citations for notability of this topic exist. Period. SolidPlaid 03:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what that proves other than that there aren't any internet sources. The internet is not the be all, end all of reliable sources. In fact, it's not even close. It's the most convenient for sure, but that's about it. -Chunky Rice 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as bad faith nom. I was in the process of discussing this article on the nominators talk page, and suggested the possibility of either merging/redirecting to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars or maybe even adding one or two sources that I may have access to (the subject receives some coverage in this book, and possibly this one too). But he seems to have rejected these suggestions out of hand and without reason, and heck, I didn't even know our discussion was over until I saw this AfD. The nominator never gave me a chance.
    In addition, I also pointed out that WP:FICTION advocates deletion only as a last resort to other options (such as merge or transwiki), so given that alternatives to deletion were put forward this AfD seems to show a blatant disregard for the very guideline cited in the nomination. AfD is not a place to demand that articles be cleaned up or deleted. PC78 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have had a discussion already on your talk page. I demanded nothing; I simply asked you when you were going to carry out the merger after you remomved the prod template. Note that you also have lots of time to userfy this article if you want. I see no evidence of bad faith; on the contrary, I have communicated my concerns about this article to you clear and open fashion. --Gavin Collins 07:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I agree that this is a bad faith nomination. The AfD process isn't a bludgeon to be used to force cleanup of an article in a timely manner. Wikipedia is not on a timeline. Rray 15:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something being fictional is not grounds for deletion, look at Sherlock Holmes, Vulcan, or kryptonite. Lack of sources is not grounds for deletion, either, it merely shows the article needs improvement. Edward321 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has a blank entry on Farscape-1, the Farscape encyclopedia, demonstrating serious lack of interest. I can't find any good citations elsewhere, sorry. SolidPlaid 00:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 228 ghits, many on other topics. And transwiki away, please. SolidPlaid 00:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "eidelon" OR "eidolon" farscape gets 9970 ghits. PC78 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eidelon is not Eidolon, I'm afraid. Let me know when you find a source demonstrating notability from the folks who misspelled it. SolidPlaid 02:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A common misspelling is a valid search term. And I've already named a source above. As f or the website you mentioned above, it seems to have quite a number of blanks, which proves nothing except perhaps a lack of interest in that particular website. Farscape Wiki does have an entry for Eidelon, so in this case a transwiki won't be necessary. But there still remains the perfectly valid option of a merge/redirect. PC78 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. It's about 204. [46]. But that's not particularly low and the number of ghits isn't relevant for notability, anyway-Chunky Rice 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars per Percy Snoodle. 100% in-universe article. Clarityfiend 03:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to farscapewiki--Victor falk 05:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - PC78 makes a very good point. The current WP:FICT was made as a mergist effort, to emphasize the retention of information in one form or another. Deletion as a last and unusual resort was a pivotal point. Here, the nominator was presented with other options and rejected them. --Kizor 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be a shame if this absolutely non-notable article survived due to a battle being fought against an editor. SolidPlaid 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cannot endorse a deletion proposal that comes immediately after an editor asked time to edit the article ("I'll deal with it when I get the chance. There's no timetable to work to here, and since pretty much all of Wikipedia's Farscape-related content is equally problematic, we're obviously looking at a mammoth cleanup task that isn't going to get done overnight" etc.; see here); in the uncertainty, I trust the editor knowledgeable on the subject and who has already mentioned two relevant books. Goochelaar 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something being fictional is not grounds for deletion. Lack of sources is ground for requesting improvements, not for nominating for deletion in a hurry. --Raistlin 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched assiduously. There are no citations on the internet. I reached the end of the internet looking. No internet citations for notability of this topic exist. Article cannot be improved. Period. SolidPlaid 03:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless, of course, we use non-internet sources. It's a shocking idea, I know. -Chunky Rice 04:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's delete the article until the time such sources emerge. SolidPlaid 19:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a merger or at least redirect would be more appropriate. Regardless, I was merely responding to your assertion that "Article cannot be improved. Period." based on the lack of internet sources. Which is just factually false. -Chunky Rice 19:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I've gathered, the Wikipedia policy is that an article is guilty of non-notability until proven innocent. I went to a great deal of trouble to look for internet citations, which should have caught citations in books now that amazon and google are indexing books. So, I have shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this article is on a non-notable topic. But more importantly, I shouldn't have to do that. The article should be deleted now, until sources appear. That is what I meant by "period". SolidPlaid 19:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this isn't a criminal court and talk about guilt and innocence is really silly. Second, the fact is that the vast marjoity of books are not scanned and indexed and therefore will not turn up on an internet search. But I'm glad you mentioned it, because I did turn up this collection of essays [47], which devotes some space to the article subject. Regardless, why are you so set on deletion. What's wrong with redirecting or merging the content? -Chunky Rice 20:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you take things too literally. The source you found is a mere passing mention, does nothing to establish notability. Please, put all the sources you find on the Eidelon page, not here. It's disingenuous. SolidPlaid 20:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing mention?
"The Eidolons are the last of a race of Peacemakers, hunted to near extinction, and the name “Eidolon” itself – though not mentioned in the course of the show – is the term for an enlightened spirit or benevolent ghost, one who comes back to aid the living. An apt name, for their power, aided by their inner sight, was once to sense others’ needs and desires and foster reason with their minds, so that all could come to agreement without need for war.
The faces of the Eidolons are almost masks themselves, initially appearing the same as a human’s or Sebacean’s except for where the face is divided by raised seams that come to a star in the center of the forehead. When they will it, however, they can open up their faces in the exact same manner as a sacred Haida or Wkakiutl transformation mask, one face splitting apart to reveal another beneath. With the Eidolons, the hidden face is the mystic third eye of Eastern legend, flanked by two smaller eyes on either side, so as not to be quite so obvious, questing about…"
That's one small excerpt. There's more where that came from. I think you need to be a little more careful about your accusations of bad faith. I'm putting it here because it's relevant to the discussion. This is a non-trivial mention by a reliable source independent of the subject. How is that not relevant to notability? I can't really use this for the article because only selected pages are available on the internet. Somebody with full access to the source material should be the one to do it. Please take note that notability is based on whether or not sources exist, not whether or not they are included in the article. Now this one source probably isn't enough to establish notability, but it certainly goes to show that the article can be improved, despite your prior assertion. -Chunky Rice 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please put it on the actual page. Don't you see; the reason that articles are nominated for deletion is because there are no sources available to non-specialists. I want more where that came from. SolidPlaid 21:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the link you provided doesn't link to the material quoted above. SolidPlaid 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the internet only has selected pages from the essay/book. I could add it in as a reference (I have), but without the entire essay, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to use it to add anything to the article. I don't know if the page after that goes on to say something that contradicts the information I have or whatever. The text I quote is on page 212 of the essay titled "Masks of Transformation." Just scroll up a bit in the link provided. -Chunky Rice 21:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Percy above. If sources are located later (as suggested above), then the article can be recovered and properly sourced. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per conversation linked by Goochelaar. Allow article to be cleaned up if possible and redirected if not.--Cube lurker 19:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All storm and fury; none of these editors has lifted a finger to put citations showing notability on the page itself. SolidPlaid 21:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

219 Michigan Avenue[edit]

219 Michigan Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable building. Not a historical buidling, not an architectural masterpiece, not influential, not heavily discussed. No claims to importance in the article. Fram 08:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless sources about its significance surface. For comparison, it was constructed 26 years after the Flatiron Building, has less than two thirds its height and barely more than half the number of storeys. Huon 09:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless other evidence of notability surfaces. It's a fraction of hte size of the Penobscot Building, then Detroit's tallest. --Dhartung | Talk 12:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems utterly non-notable--Victor falk 05:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Destroyed and replaced by a Holiday Inn. Definitely not notable. KyuuA4 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There might be some notability to be proven about this building, such as its connection to a notable architect or its influence within an architectural style. However, none of those factors are mentioned in this article, or even hinted at. If this information isn't added by the close of this AFD, then delete it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - there seems to be fair consensus that this video game is notable: it has been reviewed professionally and it seems to have received a fair share of press coverage. This needs to be sourced though, as do several tens of thousands of other articles relating to commercial subject matters. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cabal Online[edit]

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

Article wsa deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabal Online only a few months ago, but this is not a straight G4 recreation. However, again there is no indication of any notability, the article has been tagged for several months now. I see no reason why the conclusion of the last AfD can't be applied straightforward again here. Fram 07:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment while i have never played this or even looked into the topic, i have heard of the game numerous times. I do think it's notable. Google also shows many things on MMOG sites, downloads, videos and pictures, etc., which makes it seem to be spread out on the net quite a bit. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the old AfD has at most very minimal relevance. Arguments from the previous AfD:

  1. Game hadn't been released yet; WP:NOT#CRYSTAL - doesn't apply since the game has since been released.
  2. Blatant advertisement / listcrufty - the article in its current form looks perfectly neutral and informative to me, so this probably doesn't apply.
  3. Lacks sources - this could apply, but there is a very good chance that adequate sources now exist which were not available 15+ months ago. Also, considering that the game appears fairly significant (numerous communities, fan sites, etc.), and hard-to-find sources may be available in other languages, and much work has been put into building a comprehensive and informative article, it would be wise IMO to exercise reservation and delete only as a last resort.

— xDanielx T/C 22:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The game is already out. In Asia and Europe as well Brazil. Just because the US and Canada (which are stated in the article) still haven't received their version of the game, this doesn't simply give the people reason to delete the article.

  1. Game hadn't been released yet - Not true, read the article as it says near the bottom that the American/Global version of the game is delayed. The reason behind this, is because no one wants to publish it yet. Maybe 1 year down the road they will make for the International people, but until then, Asian, Brazil and Eu are playing it.
  2. Advertisment - Again, not true. The article doesn't have too many scruffy things in it. Infact, most of the information is collected from the Official Site, or at least, sites afflited with the Official site if any others were taken.
  3. Lacks Sources - While this may be true, I see lots of people searching on google and finding information about it. Instead of debating on this, why not list some actual sources and help the article?

There are at least several other MMORPG articles here on Wikipedia which have less then 2 lines, and no citation on them, yet they aren't nominated for deletion. Every tried Archlord? I think this article is more well written then that one. AceAngel T/C 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The existance or non-existance of other articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the outcome of this AFD. If you feel they don't meet notability standards, feel free to nominate them. shoy 15:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Professionally reviewed and covered by games news sources, among which is the respectable PC Gamer magazine (Nov 2006, p.86). Notable. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable even if not licensed for USA. Bearian 23:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reduce to stub - I'm confident that enough press coverage can be gathered to assert notability, even if it means Babel Fishing one of the Japaneses sources. However, the present content needs gutting; from start to finish it is peacock terms, original research, indiscriminate information and does not follow our WP:WAF style guide. External links also need stripping; just the english language offical site and non of the un-official ones (per WP:EL.) Marasmusine 13:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft 11:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots on wheels[edit]

Idiots on wheels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Is this group really notable enough to be included within an encyclopaedia? I've certainly never heard of them. I think it's self-promo. RyanLupin (talk/contribs) 07:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete db-group. JuJube 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Completely fails WP:MUSIC. This group has not been the subject of any multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician itself and reliable. Moreover, it has not had any charted hit on any national music chart. This group has also not won any major music competition as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete - They make YouTube videos. No thanks. As for their music career, they have three songs. I didn't actually check to see if any of them charted, but I have a hunch none of them did. Call me pessimistic. --Bongwarrior 08:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above, no assertion of notability. Carlosguitar 09:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep--JForget 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This in universe plot summary provides no real world context, analysis, critisism or secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response I believe the Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) is a fictional state derived from the game instructions for Star Fleet Universe board-, card-, and role-playing games, whereas the other link refers to the fictional race derived from the original Star Trek television series. The difference is that the STU version in non-notable. --Gavin Collins 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response the 'non-notable' is your opinion only. Web Warlock 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close(as bad faith nom). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. The nominator is under an RfC for forcing other editors (specifically RPG-inclined ones) to fix articles that he deems as unqualified for WP via AfD. Last time I check contributors are not under the authority of deletionists--Lenticel (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above, also a highly notable race/faction of the SF Battles Universe with over 30 years of it's own development timeline. Web Warlock 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable within the context of Star Trek ffm 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable within the context of the game. The nominator has an opinion that most articles related to scifi and fantasy type games are "non-notable", but he's demonstrated no knowledge of what's notable or not - he's just nominated articles for deletion en masse repeatedly. Rray 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what seems to be a possible instance of Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Even if that is not the case, the Romulan Empire has made enough appearances in the highly notable Star Trek univserse that an article on it seems reasonable and sourceable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not about the Romulan race. It's an article about the Romulan race in the context of a game. A lot of people are confused here. This is like arguing that since Derek Jeter is notable, the Derek Jeter in MLB 2k7 is notable and worthy of an article. Smashville 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fully understanding that this is in regards to the RPG, not the TV shows. Still notable in relation to the notable game. I hate to add a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement but considering this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) was a keep less then 3 weeks ago I see no reason for consensus to have changed.--Cube lurker 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other could probably be brought to DRV...there was a "consensus" but no one actually gave any evidence as to why it was notable. Smashville 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If that's really a community belief, then why wasn't that brought to DRV instead of nominating a nearly identical article?--Cube lurker 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate it, however, since they're not the same article, I don't see how taking one article to DRV would get another deleted. Also, based on the first response, it seems that nominating these articles gets you involved in a flame war. Smashville 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you slightly misunderstood mu comment (and probably my fault for not expressing it clearly). It really wasn't directed solely at you. My meaning was, if this sort of article is inappropriate for WP, why didn't the nominator (same for both articles) take it to DRV, instead of just moving down his list and AFD'ing the next one.--Cube lurker 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a major race in a major RPG, although it is non canonical with regards to the present Star Trek Universe, this alternative Trek universe has had over 30 years of history and development behind it. KTo288 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad faith WP:POINT nom. Jtrainor 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete by author request. —Cryptic 03:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Elmaleh[edit]

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

Not notable politician, fails WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 07:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable biography. Political candidate from several elections ago who did not come close to winning a notable office. Outpolling a small group of other Libertarian candidates is not a notable achievement, and nor is being president of a local property firm. Links are not independent of the subject (political party website and self-published pages) and an internet search does not reveal any other claims to fame. Euryalus 07:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why everyone wants to delete entries around here. If the goal is to cover any notable or newsworthy information then all of that should be here and we should err to the side of having too much rather than not enough. I don't know this person, but I know of both him and of Doug Lebda from living in Charlotte, NC so I wrote articles about the names -- doing some online research. I did note, before I wrote this article, there were references to Daniel Elmaleh elsewhere on Wikipedia so it's not like this is the only thing that references him. As far as the criteria, I believe they are a bit nebelous what is notable to one person may be notable to another. Again, I just think it doesn't hurt anyone to keep an extra bio on someone who may or may not be borderline. You will find press coverage of Elmaleh in The Charlotte Observer as well. TunaWuna 12:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't know him, how come you keep insisting that a content-free, copyright-infringing, WP:EL-violating site that he happens to run be linked from Wikipedia? —Cryptic 01:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
=Why do you hate that ACS site so bad, I found it when I was doing research for the Elmaleh article and I thought it fit with ACS. It seems like it has good content to me and some of the other sites use some of the same material he uses -- photos, etc. I am a fan of the game too and thought it would be good for people to see it. I think there is good content on the site. Sorry, I am new.
Further, your statement that you saw references to him elsewhere on Wikipedia is patently false; his only mention prior to October 8, when you, JamesTabField, and your IP began promoting him was on North Carolina General Assembly election, 2002, where I note that all the non-redlinks either won the election or are notable for reasons other than it. Delete, self-promotion, or indistinguishable from it. —Cryptic 02:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who James is, but I share this computer with a few other people. Sorry. And, I think you are being rude to me.

I lived in Charlotte, too and this guy is a musician as well. An interesting enough character to have an article. I will see if I can find links to his albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesTabfield (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 October 2007; this was his fourth edit

Please delete this. After learning more, this should not be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.200.3 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, all this is going to sound crazy but I think this should be deleted, too. Someone, who shall remain nameless, has been using my computer and thought it would be cute to write an article about me since I was using Wikipedia to write other stuff. He even went as far as to make some comments about some of my other posts. Sorry for any confusion I have caused. I guess that's what I get for leaving my computer out and on. Can we delte this quickly. I am embarassed for it to even be out here and I am sure it damaged my reputation on this site. Anyway, I am changing my password so this does not happen again.TunaWuna 03:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc. Rugby Premierships[edit]

Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc. Rugby Premierships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of winners of an amatuer school rugby competition. No relevance to any of the articles concerned, fails any sort of notability. Twenty Years 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is relevant to the page "Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc.", and is relevant to the associated pages to do with each school that is a member of Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc.. There is an equivalent page for the rowing competition of the Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc.: "Head of the River (Queensland)" already in existence that list the winners of this competition. Njsalmon 07:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The head of the river is notable, this isnt. If you find reliable sources to back up all claims, ill change my vote to a keep. Twenty Years 08:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Book "T. Max Hawkins, The Queensland Great Public Schools - A History (Jacaranda Press, Brisbane, 1965)" contains history on the schools involved in the "Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc." and has a comprehensive list of the major inter-school sporting competitions from 1918 to 1964, one of which is Rugby; It lists the winners of the 1st XV competition for each year from 1918 through to 1964. The nine schools that are members of the "Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc.", Wikipedia pages and their actual websites will usually have some mention of the number of premierships they have attained, possibly even the years in which they attained them, Nudgee Listing the number and years on their website, as does the Anglican Church Grammar School, The Southport School, Brisbane Grammar School lists their number of premierships etc. St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace School Annuals, Sporting Programmes from 1992-1996 have extensive reports into the schools performance in Rugby. The websites/annuals/sports programmes are a reference for the results in the years 1965-2007. On review of the school's websites, it is obvious that within the members of the "Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc." There is an emphasis placed upon the performance of the school on the Rugby field in the GPS competition. It is also one of the sports that all nine schools compete in. Njsalmon 11:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it has been established that the Great Public Schools Association of Queensland Inc. is notable, not the list of rugby premierships. The schools websites are primary sources, and as such are not reliable sources. When you find an article written on/about the GPS Rugby competition, that may help your cause. Twenty Years 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough point about the reliable sources, if I can find any articles written on or about the competition I will inform you. Njsalmon 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unremarkable event results, no assertion of notability. Note that the page as it is now violates Fair Use with the use of school logos(crests). Gnangarra 07:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be a case for an article on the competition itself providing that there are reliable sources for it. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft, unencyclopedic. Keb25 00:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As far as I can tell, preserving the edit history will be needed to do a merge here. W.marsh 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mims discography[edit]

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

This article should e deleted and it's content moved to MIMS Ridernyc 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you mean merge and redirect, which doesn't require an AfD consensus. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's the rationale for deleting or redirecting this? I don't see one. We have tons of "Artist X Discography" articles. MIMS is hardly obscure, This Is Why I'm Hot was a number one record. Discography articles seem to be standard practice and I don't see what's different about this one, other than MIMS is a relatively new artist who has only released one album (though supposedly another one is coming out in the next few months). Nom needs to provide a rationale for deletion or redirect. It's small now, but will obviously grow and does not currently include things like guest appearances which I'm sure he has made.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no deletion rationale given. 96T 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete discography pages are for decade-old bands with several albums (e.g. The Goo Goo Dolls), not for an artist with one single and one album. Will (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy or guideline upon which you are drawing here? Because we don't seem to be following the practice of only creating discography pages for "decade-old bands" and I don't see why the length of time someone has been around would have any bearing on anything. Under Category:Discographies I see 196 entries including Avril Lavigne discography (3 albums), Bun B discography (2 albums), and Clipse discography (2 albums officially released). Their albums were released since 2000, and these are just three entries I found from names I quickly recognized in the A-C sections. How exactly is MIMS different with his one album with a huge hit single and another album to be released in the near future? (This is a case where "otherstuffexists" is clearly relevant, as it actually often is in deletion debates, despite the argument here in this essay). We could delete this discography now, but it will just get recreated when his second album comes out as it almost certainly will (barring some major unforeseen circumstance--MIMS is often considered the most promising NYC MC--at least in terms of sales possibilities--and there's no sign of him going away any time soon). If guidelines say discographies should be listed in the artist article as Ridernyc suggests below then we have some serious cleanup to do, but I have not heard of that guideline, and I still don't see a policy-based rationale for deletion. I think it makes a lot of sense to have discography articles for significant artists. They are very useful and save a lot of space in the main article, from which we can (and often do) easily link to the discography.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Two singles, one album. That's three in total. Avril has 14 singles and three albums. That's six times the total of releases. Otherwise, it's too short to stand on its own and should be part of the artist's page. If you think a certain discography article is too short, propose deletion or a merge. (And by the way, to strengthen my point, the Goo Goo Dolls don't have a discography page, and they're more successful than MIMS is.) Will (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about 2 albums and 5 singles, none of which were a hit? Do you see my point? What's the standard for when an artist can have a discography page? We don't seem to have one, so saying three albums is enough and one is not seems rather arbitrary. You're quite convinced in your view, I disagree, and neither of us are using guidelines for our arguments, but it's more of a problem for the delete camp because you need to provide a valid rationale or we default to keep. Incidentally, I don't think "success" has a particular bearing on whether an artist gets a discography page or not. Some prolific and quite notable musicians never achieve anything approaching the success of pop acts like the Goo Goo Dolls or Avril Lavigne, but I don't think this should have any bearing on whether they get a discography page. Ridernyc has helpfully started a thread on the WP:MUSIC page, so hopefully this can be discussed further there.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm pretty sure in guide lines somewhere it explains that discography's should be listed in the artists article. Also the entry on WP:MUSIC for albums states that NN albums should should be part of the artists article, if albums should be part of the article then a fair conclusion is that a NN discography containing 3 entries should also be part of the artists article. If I can fit the entire discography of The Residents in the article and see no reason to split it off I fail to see a reason for a 3 song discography of NN releases to have it own page.Ridernyc 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC actually says "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting [emphasis added]. I don't think it's a problem that The Residents discography is in the article, but I don't see a guideline which says splitting off discographies is a problem either (at times as in the case of The Beatles bootlegs and The Beatles discography and I'm sure many others it's downright necessary). Wikipedia has a lot of lists of things, many of which are fairly worthless. Discography articles for significant artists are quite useful and we seem to have embraced them. It thus seems fairly arbitrary to AfD this one article rather than having a larger conversation if discog articles about newer groups/artists are really such a problem.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone is ever going to make a discography with out following it by making pages for each album. The edior working on the MIMS article is making articles for everything, artist, albums, and songs. And I do agree it needs to be a larger discussion. Ridernyc 07:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, well we have pretty clear guidelines on what to do with albums and songs and non-notable artists and it seems like those articles which this new user created and which do not meet our guidelines have been/will be deleted (as a new contributor it's not surprising they are not aware of our notability guidelines). It seems to be okay to have album pages (from significant artists) so long as the content is more than a track listing (though often that's what it is). With discographies I really just do not see the harm (we do content forks all the time) while there are clear advantages in terms of readability of articles. Anyhow in the absence of a definite guideline on what to do with discographies (perhaps that can be worked on, or maybe we're just missing an existing guideline) I think we should err on the side of keep on this one.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion on the WP:MUSIC talk page about this issue. Ridernyc 08:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no encyclopedia article here, might as well delete it. Burntsauce 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 00:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113[edit]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 113 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a straight copy-paste from the cited source, with each case made into a wikilink. Not one of these cases has an article, and it seems unlikely that any meaningful proportion of them will have articles as most of the cases are not actually that interesting. If the list included a brief summary of the case and its significance that might make it useful, but it lacks even that. And again, the cases are not that interesting. so such a summary is not that likely. Just because we are legally allowed to copy-paste from this source does not mean we should be doing so, I think. Cruftbane 06:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? As an argument it certainly doesn't address the issue, which is that we have no articles n these, most of them are of no evident significance, and the list is already available from the authoritative source cited. Existence of a category does not mean we should have every member of that category. Cruftbane 10:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. However, this case is different, because it is not just one or a few other articles that "exists," but a huge category. And as Huon pointed out, most of them are redlinked like this one. But I think that Fosnez had made a the best point. And that is, that these cases are all "filled out" over time. Each Supreme Court case is considered notable, and editors are continuously creating articles for SC cases. Therefore, over time, the links will be "deredlinked" --Brewcrewer 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. Simply being a U.S. Supreme Court case doesn't make a case inherently notable. --Hnsampat 11:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generally respond to individual votes in AfDs, however, this one is particularly uninformed. Read SCOTUS and then tell me that what nine people decide for a nation of 300 million isn't going to be notable. The justices are as powerful as Congress or the President, and they regularly show that. Every case they rule on is a binding, un-appeal-able decision. What they have to say is most certainly notable. --MZMcBride 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you disagreeing with me, but I resent your calling my opinion "uninformed." I'm at least as informed as you are, thank you very much. Now, to respond to your point. Certainly, the Supreme Court is clearly powerful and has the final word on a whole range of issues that affect millions of people. However, not every case that comes before the Supreme Court affects millions of people. Most are on very narrow points of law. I mean, would we have an article about each of the over 14,000 Executive Orders that various Presidents have signed? No, we'd instead only mention those that have had a widespread impact. Ditto here. (This is also why we don't have info on every single law Congress ever passed; we're Wikipedia, not the Congressional Record.) --Hnsampat 03:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not an individual case is notable, this AfD is focusing on the lists of cases, which as a sum of their parts, are notable and encyclopedic. Similar lists include: List of Statutory Instruments of the United Kingdom, 1991, etc. Also, there are projects devoted to covering equally large and arguably unimportant or un-encyclopedic content, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress is creating articles for every member of the U.S. Congress ever. There's obvious value to these lists, if for no other reason than pure reference material. --MZMcBride 04:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. I still feel that this list has no real content and is something that may fit better in Wikisource. But, to acknowledge that a case can be made for keeping, I'll say weak delete. --Hnsampat 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I just checked several other "List of United States Supreme Court cases" articles, and all I checked contained a few non-redlinks, with only one of the corresponding 10 or so case articles I checked a one-line stub. So I'd give this list the benefit of the doubt and accept it serves the purposes of development and, someday, navigation per WP:LIST. Anyway, whatever we decide here should be a precedent for most of the category's content: volume 113 isn't any more or less notable than any other. Huon 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although they are red links now, I would suggest they would be expanded fully later, even if it took 10 years, an easy to access, cross referenced and wikilinked listing of all these cases sounds like a wonderful idea, and perfect for wikipedia. This is not a small task, but given time, it will add to the value of the project as a whole. Fosnez 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a directory of cases, eh? Cruftbane 15:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been through this before, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35. First, our coverage of Supreme Court cases suffers from as much recentism as any other area of Wikipedia. Look at a more recent volume for lots of bluelinks. We'll get to these older cases eventually. Second, as was pointed out in the first discussion, looking at Special:Whatlinkshere for a particular case tells you (from these lists) if several cases with the same name exist and a disambiguation page will be necessary (helpful for maintenance). Third, all cases listed here were decided by the highest court in the United States and are important because they set precedents in areas of law that effect the entire legal arena. You may not find much on nytimes.com these days about Cole v. La Grange (the first case on this list), but you will find 434 google books hits that indicate the case probably is notable. Finally, that something isn't "interesting" is a subjective judgment and not an indication of whether it should be included in an encyclopedia; I may not find Giant magnetoresistance interesting, but it's still linked from WP:ITN right now. Listing cases chronologically is an appropriate way to organize content, and is far from useless.--chaser - t 23:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who's doing this work for every other country's supreme court? Cruftbane 06:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are over 30,000 U.S. Supreme Court cases; if WP:SCOTUS created 100 articles per week, it would take over 5.5 years to complete all of the cases. Is that an argument to delete the lists? No, it's just a simple justification for the number of red links. Hopefully, one day, all of those links will be blue; it won't be today or this year. There are very few complete lists of U.S. Supreme Court cases available online; before this, the only publicly accessible one that I know of was the U.S. Supreme Court's, and that list was hard to find for even an incredibly capable web surfer. These lists are unbiased, accurate, informative, and useful. These lists are unable to be replicated using categories due to the nonexistent articles. However, as for notability, every U.S. Supreme Court is binding on the entire United States. To try to argue that what they rule is uninteresting and therefore the lists of articles should be deleted is ludicrous. Additionally, this very debate has come up before and was not only closed as "keep," it was closed speedily. These lists should stay. Also, on a side note, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay (read: "it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)"). It's not a guideline, and it will never be policy. If "some" of those editors care to weigh in here, they're free to; else, who cares what they have to say? --MZMcBride 01:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a sensible structured list (by date) meeting WP:LIST. Most if not all Supreme Court cases are notable in their impact as can be seen from the most recent of these lists List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 546 where many of the cases have their own articles. As notability is permament I see no reason why the same cannot be done for many of the cases on this list. Davewild 07:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets the requirements of WP:LIST purposes information, navigation and development. Dreadstar † 19:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list such as this is a navigational and organizational tool. I expect that each of the cases have multiple substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources, as would be seen by Google book This is in addition to legal textbooks. It is naive to say "the cases are not that interesting" unless the nominator has researched each of the cases and checked for the citation of the case in subsequent legal opinions. Edison 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As the original creator of this article, I must recognize my own bias, as it wouldn't make me feel very good if the consensus of the wikipedian community thought my contributions were in some way unworthy. That being said, I will (subjectively) say that the article should be kept for a number of reasons. First, wikipedia remains a good place to start an investigation into the past and just because no one has started a page from one of the redlinks does not mean that they will not in the future. The list also meets wikipedia's policies for a page, and as MZMcbride says, this similar page has already been discussed. The result was a snowball keep.[48] Second, the list is important as a historical reference to cases that were decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which is a seperate and powerful branch of the Government of that country, and deserves respect. Third, the past decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, through their impact on U.S. foreign and domestic policy have affected and continue to affect the everyday lives of every person on the planet, although perhaps at times with minimal impact. Fourth, the process by which the Supreme Court decides its cases involves an examination of precedent as well as the application of its policy of stare decisis, whereby the laws of the past can become binding legal principals and affect the decisions of future courts, and the page is an important reference to this process. Although this particular list of cases may not seem particularly relevant to your life today, they form a basis of the legal decisions that I assure you are completely relevant to your life. Fifth, the page works as a navigational and organizational tool and allows the easy creation of the case pages in the future. Finally, I will personally endeavor, just to end this argument, to create several case pages (that I personally find interesting, although I'm sure every case is especially interesting to someone) from the redlinks myself as well as link the case cites from the list to findlaw's case files.--Cdogsimmons 19:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Three keep votes consisting of 210, 244, and 358 words, respectively, totaling 812 words. I think Chaser was right. --MZMcBride 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the numerous well-worded and comprehensive arguments above. Court cases that make it to the Supreme Court are inherently notable and lists of them are helpful in reference guides for providing clear organization of those cases. I also think this one may fall under a snowball keep as well. In any event, I hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Alright (MIMS song)[edit]

It's Alright (MIMS song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Another song with no notabilty. Ridernyc 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no content or sources here. - eo 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete substub. Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 --DarkFalls talk 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without You (Mims song)[edit]

Without You (Mims song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nothing Notable about this song. Ridernyc 06:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. DS 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hereditary Prince Richard Kincaid-Lake[edit]

Hoax article containing no valid information, which seems to have been created by the purported subject of the article Nunh-huh 06:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute Little Farts[edit]

Cute Little Farts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

minor routine, not noteworthy in general or compared to the rest of Carlin's work, no need for an article Ugliness Man 05:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to relevent album. This should be treated like a non-notable song on a notable album. Most of the article is fannish WP:OR anyways. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Jayron32. NN. Bearian 21:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G11, blatant advertising. - auburnpilot talk 07:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erantis[edit]

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

Delete pretty much an advertisement for a nn real estate developer. Carlossuarez46 04:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Aarktica 23:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Harrisons[edit]

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

Delete nn unsigned band, fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 04:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable band. Carlosguitar 09:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band have appeared on Irish national radio and television (TG4 and City Channel) and recorded a live session for Dan Hegarty's show on 2FM in February of 2007. They have also released three EPs and one single. The band also appeared as part of the Hard Working Class Heroes festival in 2006, receiving positive reviews from InDublin magazine. So as far as I am concerned, this band appears to meet WP:BAND. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ffm 13:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From WP:BAND: No "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable ... in all forms." Never "a charted hit on any national music chart." No "record certified gold or higher in at least one country." No "national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources." No "albums...." (EP's do not count.) Not "the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city..., including verifiability." Has never "won or been nominated for a major music award...." Has not won "a major music competition." Has never "performed music for a work of media that is notable.... (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 not "been placed in rotation ...." Has not "been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." (bold added) Bearian 20:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurekahedge Pte Ltd[edit]

Eurekahedge Pte Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this comany meets WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 04:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Apparently its the worlds world's 'largest independent hedge fund research company' (whatever that is). A google search indicates quite a few media articles reliant on the research conducted by Eurekahedge. --Mkativerata 04:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per above reasoning.JJJ999 05:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete as lack of secondary sources provides no evidence of notability. This subscription based service looks like a web portal for hedgefund press releases, nothing notable in that. --Gavin Collins 22:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus--JForget 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Credins Bank[edit]

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

Delete nn bank, fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 04:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Not so sure this is not notable - it appears to be Albania's largest private bank. The article in its current state certainly doesn't establish notability, but with amendments it probably would. --Mkativerata 04:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just so we understand private bank as opposed to public bank not as opposed to government-owned bank, without some indication of size or coverage in reliable sources, it's just conjecture that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- until more facts and refs givenJJJ999 05:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete as this small unquoted bank fails to demonstrate notability as nominated by Carlossuarez46. --Gavin Collins 22:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources [49], which indicate this was the first Albanian bank that didn't rely on foreign investment. That seems notable. --W.marsh 16:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market Culture[edit]

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

This may be a perfectly valid article. I'm unable to penetrate the ad-speak employed in the article. It originally had suggestions for a web search, which screamed to me of probable advertising placement from companies in the top of the Ghits. I'm just very, very suspicious of this article. I'm going to say this is for not meeting WP:Notability but I'm mostly wanting feedback about whether this could be a legit article or not. Pigman 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is definitely not what one expects should be in this article, ie something about the culture of markets--Victor falk 05:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable neogolism at best, or worst case this is original research; can' say without secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 22:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vehemently. People who write stuff like:

    Conceptually, market culture involves all functions of an organization working seamlessly together to accurately determine customers’ current and future needs and to satisfy those needs. More concretely, it involves four types of behaviors: customer insight, competitor insight, cross-functional teaming, and collaborative networks. Buttressing and engendering these behaviors are specific cultural sets, skills sets, and organizational catalysts.

    need to be aware that if they do so, someone will be laughing at them behind their back. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from merge. GRBerry 14:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alive Bible Club[edit]

Alive Bible Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The subject lacks notability. There is insufficient media coverage to create more than a stub. - Jehochman Talk 03:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This would clearly be non-notable but for the fact that the club is suing the school. In my view, taking legal action would not make an organisation notable unless that action actually causes the organisation to become notable. For example, the legal action may be doomed to fail and be dismissed or withdrawn without controversy (as most of these cases are). It seems to me that the only independent coverage of the action is minor, and limited to local or regional news. If the case got to the Supreme Court or made the national news, there may be a case for notability, but not yet. --Mkativerata 04:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Equal Access Act. The individual Bible Club is not notable but the issue has legal importance as a test of laws surrounding both religious and gay student organizations. I have gone ahead and merged the relevant information from this article into the list of similar cases on the Equal Access Act page. The remainder of this article has no notability (for example, the names of the students are not relevant and the majority of the links are either dead or duplicates of the Thomas More press release). Euryalus 04:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The press release isn't a reliable source in this situation. Merging the useful bits is a fine idea. - Jehochman Talk 05:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Perhaps its better placed as an external link though if the article is redirected it's a moot point. The only viable reference left is the Evening Bulletin, which I have also transferred to the Equal Access Act page. Euryalus 05:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge into part of a larger article which is notable itslf, [[Equal Access Act] may be the place, I would have to look around some more, but this article simply does not appear to carry enough notability on its own, nor is there much ability to bring this article beyond a stub status on its own. Tiggerjay 07:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiener's Circle[edit]

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

The page asserts notability, which I believe it hasn't got, so I have AfD'd it. An appearance on Dave Attell, doesn't mean notable. A google books search turned up only a few passing mentions and a web search turns up numerous advertising sites. The article lacks references for any of its assertions as well. IvoShandor 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not turning up much of anything beyond some online reviews ("road food", yum.) Pigman 03:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It doesn't have the same international recognition as Superdawg, but it has several celebrity fans (Jennifer Anniston, and I think Conan O'Brien), and it's received a decent amount of media coverage beyond standard restaurant reviews. I found these on Newsbank:
  • Melissa Horwitz. "Relishing insults: You might feel like a loser at the Wiener's Circle but it's all part of the late-night fun". Chicago Tribune. 11 June 2006. Q1. (1,948 words)
  • Elisa Bongiovanni. "Hold that ketchup: Chicago hot dog has East Bay following". Contra Costa Times. 11 August 2004. g01. (1,691 words)
  • Christopher Solomon. "Summer in the Second City". New York Times. 29 August 2004. Travel, 10. (a couple paragraphs of info)
Plus lots of brief mentions here and there. Zagalejo^^^ 04:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added references to the article, but it needs more work.. Seems notable. If someone can varify the Chocolate Milkshake bit then that would be great... Fosnez 04:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not mentioned in anything I've found that falls under WP:RS, although it's mentioned in a few blogs. Zagalejo^^^ 07:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- as above, some notability here.JJJ999 05:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still does not have enough content to establish any significant notability on its own. Simply being a place someone famous visits is not enough. Tiggerjay 07:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's notable because it has received some non-trivial media coverage. The celebrity guests are just icing on the cake. Zagalejo^^^ 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jimfbleak. - Mike Rosoft 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghouls Black Death[edit]

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

unsourced article about a nn album yet to be released by apparently nn group WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MUSIC and possible hoax.Carlossuarez46 02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't think this is a hoax, but it is certainly non-notable. An article on an unreleased album by unknown garage band which records its songs in its lead singer's bedroom, for which there are no verifiable sources and no indication of notability. plus a large part of the article is an attempt at comic personal attacks on band members. A breach of all the criteria of WP:MUSIC as well as WP:CRYSTAL. Euryalus 03:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:MUSIC. Absolute garbage. The current version appears to be vandalism, but the original wasn't much better. The original version makes no assertion of notability besides claiming the record was released by Def American, which is a lie. The only mystery here is how this article managed to survive for so long. --Bongwarrior 03:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others. Pigman 03:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitriados street[edit]

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

Delete some streets in a mid-sized Greek town, with no independent notability and no sourcing.

I am also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 02:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I argued differently in the US malls AFD, there's a lack of consensus in this AFD, and the US malls AFD was closed as no consensus as well. There does not seem to be consensus for deleting these at this time. W.marsh 16:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Thailand[edit]

List of shopping malls in Thailand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Neither is it a collection of indiscriminate information. Notable malls can be found in the category. •97198 talk 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar debate: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (2nd nomination) as well. Burntsauce 21:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly categorize. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wait, I just realized there already is a category for this information. Delete. Useight 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The attacks on lists with the argument that WP is not a directory is a false argument. Every list is a 'directory' and WP accepts lists. This list of one of 46 similar lists in its category and there is no stated justification for deleting any of them. Hmains 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is exactly what lists are for and fits the textbook definition of WP:LIST of where and how lists should be used, in manners that can never be achieved using categories, as suggested. As to WP:NOT#DIR, this list provides a clear, well-defined, unambiguously-classified list of useful information. Plain and simple, given that the policies quoted are completely and totally irrelevant to this article, there is no Wikipedia policy justification for deletion of this list, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alansohn 05:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and complete rewrite. The article is a mess. It confuses shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores. Virtually all content is unsourced, including malls described as "upcoming". One of the entries (Tokyu MBK, Siam Square) seems to be a store within another (separately listed) mall. The links are partly useless (for example Rama III or Metro Mall). All of these issues can be addressed by editing and don't necessitate deletion, but it might be easier to delete it and start anew. In principle, it may serve all three purposes given in WP:LIST, so it's a valid topic for a Wikipedia entry. Huon 12:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 22:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Would be easier to clean this up by starting from scratch. A quick look shows that most entries are not about malls. Vegaswikian 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every list is not a directory, this, however, borders on the yellow pages. Punkmorten 21:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karmyn tyler[edit]

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

Looking carefully at this, I can't actually see any WP:Notability or reliable sources. She doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO in my eyes. What say you? Pigman 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced vanity page without notability. --RaiderAspect 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm neutral as to if this should be kept, a good argument either way will probably sway me, but I have formatted the article and referenced what I can. Fosnez 02:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notability, acting in industrial films and a putting out your own CD is nothing notable. Ridernyc 03:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Blcfilm 04:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - the most notable feature is winning the Miss Louisiana contest in 1995. This a significant and recognised honour, but:
    • While widespread Louisiana-based coverage of this 1995 title could probably be found it is likely they would represent the person in the context of the notable event, rather than as a notable person in their own right;
    • Ms Tyler did not go on to win or place in any national pageant or any other state-based contest;
    • Per WP:BIO there is no evidence that this person has a significant fan base or has made a unique contribution to their field; and
    • The minor acting career and self-released CD do not appear to have obtained any independent coverage.
You could argue this either way but I think on balance the Miss Louisiana crown alone is not enough to justify the article on notability grounds. Euryalus 06:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete last name is in lower case - sure fire indicator of (lack of) notability Will (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per the anti-lowercase cabal. Burntsauce 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant notability. Contributor appears to be WP:SPA. Tiggerjay 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a reasonable time-frame, a renomination may be appropriate if issues are not addressed. Daniel 09:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schlow Centre Region Library[edit]

Schlow Centre Region Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason StateCollege101 01:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reason given for deletion, so default to speedy keep as invalid nom. Nominator's only actions on WP are several attempts to delete this article, none of which have any reason given.DMacks 16:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the nom did not follow policy, it does appear that this article does not have any intrinsic notability. Tiggerjay 07:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Library with no claim to notabilty Secret 00:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per [50]. Lots of sources useful in writing this article. --W.marsh 16:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are local sources, doesn't help with notabilty, and nothing that isn't trivial that I see (like opening of library, club meetings, etc) Jbeach56 23:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have more than enough space to provide information mostly of local interest. There's no harm in providing it, but there's harm in removing it. We're not just an encyclopedia for topics more than 1 million people care about. --W.marsh 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - this is a tough one, so my default is to keep, but I would not close the AfD. Needs more sources. 00:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)


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

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Standish O'Grady Roche, 4th Baronet[edit]

Sir Standish O'Grady Roche, 4th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced one-line article about a ship's captain and minor nobility - is that notable? I don't think so. A redirect to the Roche Baronets might be ok, but as it looks now that article is basically a red-link farm, so delete is probably in order.Carlossuarez46 01:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable, naval commander, baronet, aide to Governor-General of New Zealand [51]. JJL 03:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noting that the article has been significantly expanded since the AfD was posted, and is now a viable B stub. If anyone was interested enough this could probably be further expanded into a genuine article. There is certainly enough in this person's background to provide the source information. Euryalus 05:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Lots of accomplishments, but below the level of notability - captains and aides in general are nn. Keep now that notability has been established, though it needs better sources for wartime activities and awards. Clarityfiend 05:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won the Distinguished Service Order and the Croix de guerre, deletion is very much not in order. Nick mallory 10:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has improved dramatically since nomination. Edward321 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & friends TOMY wind ups[edit]

Thomas & friends TOMY wind ups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Attempt (IMO) to run-around the earlier redirection at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Tomy Wind Ups. The consensus was clear; these shouldn't each have their own articles, and nothing has changed, but these articles tend to get recreated (as in the related AFD). Masaruemoto 01:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nothing notable, and basically no information at all in article. 05:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete possibly WP:SPEEDY per reason G4 as recreation of deleted material. Also, a list of non-notable toys seems fairly non-notable in and of itself. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per jayron 32, masuruemoto, nom, and spam--Victor falk 05:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons above. Tiggerjay 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result wasKeep per Snow/Nomination Withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cats[edit]

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

I have no idea what's up with this page. It's problematic because the article subject is 'Fat cat,' yet the article title is 'Fat cats.' But besides that, it's completely original research and there are no reliable sources so pretty much, yeah, it's got to go. the_undertow talk 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Nom Withdrawn the_undertow talk 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unreferenced dicdef. I don't think there's enough here salvageable for a transwiki to Wiktionary (which was already done, maybe after the first AFD). I don't think there's enough specific cultural importance to the term to write about, but I'm willing to be surprised. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should be turned into a disambiguation page as there are at least three unrelated subjects on it currently. Colonel Warden 09:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep turn into a disambig page. Jonathan t - c 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'Fat cat' should be the disambig page. This is a page of the plural 'fat cats' which makes no sense because the article is about the singular subject. the_undertow talk 03:29, 1 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, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should be turned into a dab page. I would refrain from creating a Fat Cat page about the "rich, greedy person" unless there is at least a verified source. i said 02:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have moved to the page to Fat Cat and made it into a disambig page (with references where required). Fosnez 03:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom Withdrawn per the bold moves by Fosnez. the_undertow talk 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirected. Carlossuarez46 02:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Castle (1997 film)[edit]

The Castle (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete no notability, coverage, sources, fails WP:MOVIE Carlossuarez46 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to The Castle (film). This is a very famous film but it already has a page. --Mkativerata 01:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Castle (film). I suspect the creator of this article didn't realise the other one existed. Either way there is no need for this one-line stub in addition to the main article on the same topic. Euryalus 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't think we need an AfD to do a rather uncontroversial redirect. So redirect it. i said 02:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative and quantitative[edit]

Qualitative and quantitative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced comparison of two dictionary definitions and how they may be used in chemistry Carlossuarez46 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Belongs as part of analytical chemistry (which already has a section on this), not as a separate page. --Mkativerata 01:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To analytical chemistry. There is an entry, but it doesn't really define it. So use Quantitative analysis (chemistry), Qualitative inorganic analysis and this article to flesh out that section, and redirect the other two I mentioned. i said 02:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible do not redirect to any chemistry topic. These terms are widely used in many fields and represent fundamentally different forms of analysis. For example, research studies in sociology might be quantitative or qualitative. These are fundamental distinctions. The page as it stands is fairly useless, but I would suggest it be kept as a disambig for, e.g., Qualitative method, Social_research, Quantitative_analysis_(chemistry), Methodology, etc etc. If I have a minute later today I will be bold and try to edit it thusly. bikeable (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rewrote briefly, although I don't feel particularly confident about it. Changes or comments most welcome. bikeable (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambigufy, per bikeable.--Victor falk 05:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant with qualitative research and quantitative research (the distinction is fairly simple, so I don't think it warrants its own article). If kept, I'd suggest renaming to Qualitative and quantitative research to clearly distinguish from non-technical uses of the terms (which are very much related, but substantially broader). Oppose redirect to anything chemistry-based; the terms are perhaps most often used in chemistry (excluding non-technical uses), but uses in other contexts are valid and significant as well. — xDanielx T/C 20:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would !vote to disambigify or redirect, but this doesn't strike me as a common search term. Delete as dicdef, as noted above, the information exists elsewhere. shoy 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per discussion. Unsourced (violates WP:RS), duplicative article, useful content already exists in two other articles. Bearian 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of USAF Intelligence Wings assgned to Strategic Air Command[edit]

List of USAF Intelligence Wings assgned to Strategic Air Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Esoterically named, misspelt article that duplicates information at 544th Information Operations Group. Orphaned; unlikely to be helpful as a redirect title Buckshot06 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to SAC. JJL 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Please read my comment above. Strategic Air Command has far too many subordinate units for them all to be listed in the main article, and when Strategic Air Command wings was created, it reached 300k. Thus merging is not the best option. This article basically covers three different names for the 544th Strategic Intelligence Wing, whose history is covered at 544th Information Operations Group. Because of the esoteric title, it's unlikely to be searched as a redirect. That's why I'm requesting deletion. Buckshot06 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Longhair\talk 01:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Screaming Secrets[edit]

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

Delete nn band and its founder.

I am also nominating:
Carlossuarez46 00:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Anthony Smith[edit]

James Anthony Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claims of notability are weak at best. No sources in article to show notability -- gsearch for James Smith + Sarasota + author don't come up with this James Smith in the first several pages. Also gsearch for either of the novels listed comes up empty. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 00:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems non-notable, and I don't like that they quote an interview that he/she supposedly had with this person. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Definitely not notable, doesnt seem quite right.--NightRider63 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable and possibly made up biography. Internet search showed no relevant hits. Even if genuine, the bulk of the article is original research as an itnerview between the alleged subject and an editor. The few verifiable statements are demonstrably false - the US inventor of windshield wipers was Alabama inventor Mary Anderson who is clearly not anyone's great great uncle. The first US phone book was a community-compiled list in Connecticut and the first "yellow pages" was designed by the Reuben H. Donnelly Company in Illinois. I don't know who invented Dixie Cups but I doubt it was either Mary Anderson or the CEO of Donnelly. Euryalus 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete all. Kudos to the nominator for his work and finding a reasonable solution (transwiki) that respects Wikipedia's policies & guidelines. — Scientizzle 16:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in the Lone Wolf series[edit]

Also nominating the following;

These articles were part of my attempt to expand coverage of the Lone Wolf (gamebooks) series, and unfortunatelly, it was before I understood things like notability and out of universe perspective. These articles and their contents have all been transferred over to the Lone Wolf wiki at Wikia, so it is safe to get ride of them on wikipedia and redirect these pages to the main Lone wolf article, Lone Wolf (gamebooks). Judgesurreal777 00:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete delete per nom, as well as other pages.--NightRider63 01:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the magical objects to the book they're primarily associated with, merge the races and groups to the characters article, and trim the character article. i said 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per request of article creator and primary editor. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember to tag all the articles you nominate for deletion with an "AFD" tag, and place redirects to the prime AFD page in the subsequent redlinks (now done.) Also, which Wiki was the content transwikied to? The Lone Wolf Wikia seems to have little activity [52], but I saw there was a fair amount of activity at this Lone Wolf wiki. The Lone Wolf series is fairly minor, and probably does not justify a large number of side articles, but I have no real opinion on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to make them direct here....also, perhaps that wiki is currently more active, but the point is that the information in these articles will still be available online and will not dissapear. Judgesurreal777 17:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okeke Nelson Malachy[edit]

Okeke Nelson Malachy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion nom This is a person who may or may not have been executed for drug trafficking. There is a single reference which says as much. A possibly convicted and possibly executed criminal is hardly enough notability to hang an entire Wikipedia article on. Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems to have been the center of a fairly big controversy. Plenty of refs [53] [54] [55]. At the very best I would say that the article should be renamed to reflect the controversy and re-worked to focus on the event rather than the man. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though there's barely anything to delete. I'd say it boarders an A7 speedy. —Signed by KoЯnfan71 My Talk Sign Here! 00:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This bloke is notable for his crimes in connection with the controversies surrounding his death. But the article needs to do a much better job of asserting notability. --Mkativerata 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete per nom. non notable, no context--NightRider63 01:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the above give the impression that there is more to this than some criminal. However, until there is more cited information and context, this is just a non notable criminal. i said 02:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per above reasoning.122.148.218.27 04:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There is no consensus to salt; some favor recreation, which would presumably make a redirect from this title appropriate. This content is deleted for massive original research and apparent POV issues. It should not be reposted. If, as some suggest, users would like to recreate this article, please start from scratch without the OR and advocacy that has marred this page. Cool Hand Luke 02:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews against zionism (2nd nomination)[edit]

Jews against zionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:POV neologism. One cannot just take a phrase and lump together a bunch of tangentially related items and claim that it is an article. The term was only used in the past for a website that was deemed not notable, see both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism, not to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews Against Zionism (disambiguation). To me, it appears we have a person desperately trying to circumvent accepted policy, by any means necessary, to push a fringe POV and/or original research-based synthesis and neologism. If anything, there is grounds for calling for a Speedy Delete in this case. Avi 00:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G4, then redirect per the previous AFD, then protect the redirect. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is also a case violating WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and WP:REICHSTAG. IZAK 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 01:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Semi-Protect delete per nom. also since this is the second nomination and it was already deleted once, I say Semi-Protect it.--NightRider63 01:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT it... Actually speedy under G4 too. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Avi and IZAK. 6SJ7 06:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and IZAK. That this crap has remained on WP for nearly a month is a disgrace to the project. I fully recognize that there are probably 350k articles that are even more attrociously uncyclopaedic, but destroying this one is as good a place as any. Make this rubbish disappear. Tomertalk 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my viewpoint...there is room for much of this material in Wikipedia, but this article is without question, not the place for it. The article in question violates the "synthesis" clause of WP:NOR to its core. Anyone who can seriously pretend to defend an article covering a "phenomenon" that counts among its supporters Noam Chomsky and R' Teitelbaum is, disgracefully, grasping at straws. That said, should anyone fail to grasp what I'm saying, getting rid of the list of "anti-Zionist" rabanim turns the article into an irrelevant discussion among a few academics, who by happenstance are Jewish, and who oppose the Jewish state. Not noteworthy. Study the two academicians listed as "Jews against zionism" (forget for a moment the incorrect capitalization of the article's name)... neither of the two prominently listed academic "Jews against Zionism" are ever, anywhere, noted for their strong identification with Jews--they simply happen to be Jews. Nor are either of them even remotely observant of Judaism--in fact both have made unabashèd statements about Judaism that quite clearly indicate their alienation from Judaism, if not outright hatred of Judaism. Beyond that, neither of them are anti-Zionist, but rather, very specifically anti-Israel...an important, but oft-overlooked distinction--especially among people who, rather than channelling their energies into the betterment of humanity, instead prefer to waste the world's time by blithering on about random Jews whose ill-considered remarks so often provide fodder for all manner of troublemakers. Remove the academics (seriously tho, the fact that the two academics brought forward in support of this pseudophenomenon are Chomsky and his disgraced erstwhile lackey Finkelstein, speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of the article's pretense of premise) and the article of necessity becomes an intra-Jewish polemic over whether or not Zionism can be a legitimate outcome of the prayers observant Jews say every day--prayers that plead with God to establish Jews in the ancient land of God's promise...an argument that is uncannily difficult, intentionally, one could argue, to tack down, but evenso, still not encyclopaedia fodder. Large portions of this article may well fit elsewhere, such as in Zionism, but there is already a section there, at Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, which links to articles for both the aforementioned phenomena—, well covered already in the Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism articles. This article seems to be primarily the product of a single-issue editor intent on presenting Wikipedia articles of interest to him according to hiw own views (a position the editor himself has previously expressed in no uncertain terms), unfortunately. Tomertalk 07:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a religious Jew it does indeed bother me to see secular heretics in one article with religious rabbis, and i would make this in 2 different articles, also i think u r mistaken that the liberal anti Zionism isn't a Jewish thing, see the article itself that this is indeed seen by them as a Jewish cause. They may be misguided but it is out there, this wikipedia article only brings you the sources. It does not make this case.--יודל 20:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spectacular. So your !vote then is actually to delete this pathetic excuse for an "article", correct? Tomertalk 05:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my vote is delete only one excuse and make it a keep for 2 excuses for 2 different articles, one for the religious traditional Jewish view against Zionism, and one for the secular modern Jewish view against Zionism, although they are both Jewish i understand it hurts u to see them recognized on the same page as Jewish so why not divide it?--יודל 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not in any way hurt me, what it does is violate WP:OR, a core Wikipedia policy, by pretending something exists that, except in some editors' fantasy world perhaps, does not. The only thing that should be discussed in this article, once it is correctly capitalized, is the group (or groups, if notable) that go by this name. The rest of the philosophy embraced by such groups is already covered in other articles already. Tomertalk 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So now u say it does not exist? on this u wrong it does exist, and how is it original research that everything is sources with many references? Also u r the one who said that every word in this article is true and appears in other wikipedia article, your concern initially was only that the name isn't good and on that we can find agreement--יודל 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either you're just talking crap now, or you're intentionally and obnoxiously misinterpreting what I said. You have shown previously, despite your sometimes poor English, that you're not stupid, so saying you misunderstood is not an option. The name is fine, but not for what this article covers. What this article covers does not exist as a philosophy of the sort the article purports, through synthesis, to describe. Tomertalk 15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this above editor has the Chutspah to deny his own words and than shouts that i am talking crap... I would like to ask him if he remembers who wrote this?: Large portions of this article may well fit elsewhere, such as in Zionism, but there is already a section there, at Zionism#Anti-Zionism and post-Zionism, which links to articles for both the aforementioned phenomena—, well covered already in the Anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism articles or There are Jews opposed to Zionism (and there are already articles covering that subject in great depth).--יודל 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I was right. Intentionally and obnoxiously misinterpreting what I said. Anyone who reads what I actually wrote will see right through your crap as well as your chutzpedik claim that it is I who has exercised chutzpa. Tomertalk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Since 2 years have passed allot of reliable and third party independent sources have been established to basically translate here its notability, and now I recreated the article as a new one with a old talk page that all the concerns from 2 years ago [56] are now void and corrected. This is a legitimate issue of Jews who oppose Zionism, nothing here is OR as Tomer above says this is all written down in other wikipedia articles. Yes some may question my Judaism, some may even question Chomsky's and Finkelstein's Judaism, but that's their POV, those people are real Jews in the worlds media and in all other encyclopedias articles suddenly when their Judaism is in relation with their Anti-Zionism we have to deny their identity. Are most Jews Zionists? I don't know. Are there Jews against Zionism, yes but since we are a fringe group in the eyes of some Jewish editors, we do not exist, and i thought we are supposed to be Neutral.--יודל 11:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Yossiea (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - several groups of people operate under this name (or, confusingly, can be described in this way) and one of these is operating a high-quality web-site and organisation of some significance, with quite a public profile. JAZ.com sell books, pay for major newspaper ads and appear to organise demonstrations with dozens (maybe 1000s) of people. Entering "Jew" into Google brings them up in position #12 from 37.5 million - we can throw out any suggestion they're not notable enough to warrant an entry.
There is another JAZ a small British group. It must be notable, because some 160 280 sock-puppets have attacked one of its prominent members participating here. There is JewsNotZionists, the Neturei Karta - claiming to speak for some of the Satmars, the community of the JAZ.com people. Two groups are fighting for just one small part of the soul of this movement - we need to document more, not less. There is a Yahoo group of that name and a blogspot for JAZ (though the latter is squatted?!). There is even Zionism on the web, which opposes these groups - surelyi proof positive these movements have a sizeable footprint.
From the encyclopedia point of view, we need a place that brings together all these groups - what else, "Jews Against Zionism (groups)"?. Importantly, we provide a "neutral" location for credible allegations of cheating or other allegations against them, a vital function of the encyclopedia.
Anti-Zionism amongst followers of Judaism is hardly "fringe" JAZ.com claim there are 1 million non-Zionist Jews, of whom 150,000 are anti-Zionist (I'm not sure if they're talking about "active practitioners of Judaism", or secular "followers" of the same religion - if the former, then they'd be a major viewpoint). Many followers of these groups are restricted as to what they can do on the web, and some seem to have language problems participating here, however, they are members of English-speaking societies.
Historically they're not "fringe" either - for 2000 years, they were the main-stream. This situation only changed in 1948 (or was it 1967?) - 60 years (or 40) in 2000 is hardly the default situation (particularily not to anyone watching emigration from Israel).
And the objection that the main flag-carrier (JAZ.com) is "anonymous" or "a blog" does not stand up either - it's a highly 'professional' site with all the characteristics of a second-level "Reliable Source" (the fact that it's "campaigning" doesn't mean it cheats). It specialises in quotes from Rabbis, some of which are significant to articles here. There's every indication it's careful and its contributors really know their subject. Russel Waxman is the editor, Reuven Waxman, Jacob Dershowitz, Leizer Fishberg, Hersh Lowenthal are making detailed contributions, more or less speaking for the the "organisation".
Nor do I understand the significance of "anonymous registration", many people participate anonymously on the web (including most of us). JAZ.com call themselves the "True Torah Jews Against Zionism", and list 11 Rabbis, from LA to Brisk, Eastern Europe with the somewhat dubious "gave their endorsements to various books published by Jews Against Zionism. Their endorsements do not necessarily mean that they approve of everything published on this website". (It's wishy-washy but it's also proof this is not a blog.)
Having said which, the article itself needs improvement, I've started on it. The disambiguation page is also up for deletion when the lesser JAZ groups also need documenting and linking to.
If we were to delete this article, then an entire movement, quite well-known, will have no representation in the project. Much smaller (and much less interesting/controversial) groups than this have their own article.
I note that this AfD is apparently being swarmed with people apparently quite bitter that we dare to have this article/suite of articles. I trust the discussion will be allowed to continue for the usual 5 days before any decision is taken. PRtalk 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information in question is already all over Wikipedia. The article Anti-Zionism has a whole section on religious opposition to Zionism, there is a whole article on Haredim and Zionism and there are articles on Neturei Karta and some of the other groups. I see that some of these articles have various tags on them so there are apparently controversies over the quality, neutrality etc. of those articles -- which I take no position on because I have not read them carefully -- but the articles are there. There may be other articles that I am not aware of. The problem arises when some or all of this information is clumped together in this article with a title that does not match the name used by the majority (if any) of the groups in question. That is OR. 6SJ7 17:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear friend, i have now addressed your concern that the term is not original research, indeed every respected newspaper in the world uses this. a simple Google search would provide you with this term as very very popular and used as its real name. Thanks very much for bringing it up--יודל 18:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:6SJ7 - I think you make my point for me - JAZ.com is far, far more significant to the general public than the Haredim (who then get a second bite of the cherry, the "Haredim and Zionism" article). I've never entered "Haredim" into Google, I don't suppose many people have. Whereas I've regularily entered "Jews Against Zionism" since I first came across it 10 years ago. In addition, I see nothing in the encyclopedia about the organisation(s) that carries on the religious "anti-Zionism" web-campaign (whereas I can find mountains on features and sub-divisions of Judaism). JAZ.com (the major user of this name) is also speaking for some quite considerable community, making them still more significant than their hit-rate implies (which, of itself, must be pretty high to get to their position on Google). The more I look at this case, the more I think this article belongs. "Jews Against Zionism" get 47,000 Google hits, that's far more than the titles of other articles I can think of. PRtalk 18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, apples and oranges are being lumped together in an OR manner. I could support the disambig page that sorts out the couple of organizations that get lumped under the name, but this page is original research. --MPerel 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problems are that it is 2 kinds of Jews i agree to make it into 2 articles, is it ok with you?--יודל 16:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think 6SJ7 brings up a good point in that articles already exist which incorporate this information. In the Antizionism article there is a section on Jewish anti-Zionism with two sections, one for political opposition and another for religious opposition, the latter being expanded even further in Haredim and Zionism. --MPerel 18:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your concern i have a solution make it into 2 separate articles for 6sj7 i would address his point i would reference the term with proper sourcing, just see how many Google reslts use this term, so many people aren't all a single OR.--יודל 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Recreate with a proper title Poorly titled article, and currently not very valuable, but the subject of Jewish opposition to Zionism is surely notable. Up until ~1945 anti-Zionism was actually the majority Jewish position, and there remain hundreds of thousands of Jews who reject Zionism for religious reasons, plus an unknown number who reject it on humanitarian or nationalistic grounds. I think it would be useful to summarize these various POVs, in more detail than we currently have in Anti-Zionism. But I can't really argue that this article is an unsalvageable mess. <eleland/talkedits> 20:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination and add (kosher) salt. Burntsauce 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PR and rename to a less POV title. Carbon Monoxide 23:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Recreate Delete for all the good reasons described above, and create a new article about the notable British group Jews Against Zionism (mentioned by PR above and discussed by RolandR here). — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why do you suggest this article be deleted, although you'd like to see the other proposed JAZ article created? There is considerable information on those behind the Brooklyn JAZ, even though they're a bit shy and their community is wary of the web. PRtalk 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Anti-Zionism without prejudice to re-splitting the Anti-Zionism article into multiple ones if space considerations call for it. The author should attempt to avoid WP:POVFORK and have this point of view represented in the Anti-Zionism article. --Shirahadasha 16:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you consider that the name Jewish anti-Zionism is indeed less Notable and less established then the title Jews against Zionism, the issue about WP:POVFORK would be void. But i do thank u for your advice.--יודל 20:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article now appears to be on the general topic of Jewish opposition to Zionism rather than on a single specific group. Because this topic is notable whether or not the article's current name and content is appropriate, the only issues I see here are WP:POVFORK, duplication of content, and appropriateness of name. --Shirahadasha 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to the suggested title Jewish opposition to Zionism, and remove heavy original research ("The Holocaust and Communism established Zionism in the mainstream" ROTFLMAO, or is it true?). The topic is valid. Mukadderat 04:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not Communism, but the one-two punch of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel turned most of the world's surviving Jews into Zionists, or at least supporters of Israel. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, my interpretation was with respect to the Sharanskys of the world, who, disillusioned and betrayed by the heirs of the Revolution, turned against Communism to Zionism (of a somewhat different brand than Herzl's), albeit somewhat late. Tomertalk 06:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't vote, so no opinion need be infered from this comment. The book of the same name was reviewed in a journal article by [Robert Rockaway] International Journal of Middle East Studies 24 (1992): 334-335. Alastair Haines 06:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC). See also Middle Eastern studies.[reply]
  • Delete Way too much original research and a host of other reasons. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight 08:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate, per the arguments raised by others. The current article is garbage; the subject matter is worthy of an article. CJCurrie 18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am normally on the opposite "side" of whatever CJCurrie argues in favor of, I think hir statement here quite concisely sums up my sentiments w/ respect to this article. There are Jews opposed to Zionism (and there are already articles covering that subject in great depth), but the JaZ folks have made enough of a splash on the intarweb that they do warrant an article, replete with "See also" links to the aforementioned relevant articles that cover other aspects of this subject. This article, however, glosses over that in favor of bringing together a wide and disparate range of viewpoints and, through synthesis (making an incredibly shoddy article in the process) seeks to make a wide-ranging phenomenon of it, giving undue weight to the groups that have adopted this name, through inclusion of every group that has not. OK, enough of my blithering. Tomertalk 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the blithering it helps understand the issue, i think there may be consensus in your favor to divide the secular opposition from the religious traditional opposition.--יודל 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There already is at least one article (which I cited above) that deals with both secular and religious Jewish anti-Zionism together. That article is already there, and has a reasonably neutral title, so we really don't need this one, which does not have a neutral title. Whether it is technically a POV fork, I am not sure; but the duplication of what is in other articles is one of the reasons why it should be deleted. 6SJ7 17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Free Texas[edit]

Radio Free Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable internet radio broadcast. Google gives "Radio Free Texas" 56 hits none of which seem to include reliable sources to confer its notability. Maybe even speedy since it doesn't even assert that it is notable NightRider63 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split Infinity Radio[edit]

Split Infinity Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Non notable Internet Radio webcast, does not yield any sources, or google hits for that fact. May even constitute for a WP:SPEEDY since there are no sources present. NightRider63 01:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte Not a notable radio station. i said 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I will take responsibility for this page and make neccisary changes to keep it on Wikipedia. This radio station actually is notable, as many Matrix Online players know about the station. They do many in game parties on the Infinity server. TIMxIRISH 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 a copyvio. No prejudice against recreation in non-copyvio form W.marsh 16:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee House Community[edit]

appears to lack notability. βcommand 04:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Lion Foundry[edit]

Red Lion Foundry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable company. google only 100 hits [57] Sfji00 05:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article doesn't mention anything they've created, and their web site doesn't list anything of note either. Being the only MMORPG developer in Cyprus is not on its own a notable characteristic, particularly considering that they (*cough*) haven't developed an MMORPG yet. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has no independent sources to establish its notability. UnitedStatesian 13:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a computing and internet business with a seriously misleading name. No independent sources or notability shown, and they have never released a consumer product. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social effects of United States military forces based in the United Kingdom[edit]

Social effects of United States military forces based in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Malformed AFD from August. BirgitteSB 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • This article is an orphan and would be better as part of the United Kingdom so I have copied its contents to United Kingdom#American armed forces. Abtract 20:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep eminently encyclopedic topic, let down by a presently poorly written and shallow article. Keep as a means to keep the article in the main space to allow improvement. KTo288 02:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spark-l-eyed wobbler[edit]

Non-notable fishing lure. BirgitteSB 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely non-notable and seems unlikely to expand beyond a single paragraph. Cosmo0 20:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Bearian 21:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding in Barcelona[edit]

Article was created to promote a website. Original article Spam link was removed since then but the article is still not a notable topic for Wikipedia. BirgitteSB 17:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

This is a useful topic, however it belongs on Wikibooks, so delete. John Vandenberg 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transcribing English to Japanese[edit]

Instruction manual which has been imported to Wikibooks. BirgitteSB 17:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Basically a How-to guide. ◄Zahakiel► 18:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. GlassCobra (Review) 22:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please provide a link to the imported article on Wikbooks. There is no article with this title there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a strange article, and not only because it's titled unidiomatically (according to my idiolect, at least) and misleadingly. But it's even stranger as a "how-to". It seems less a how-to-do than a description of how-it-has-been-done, where "it" is less a matter of orthography than the formation of one stratum of the Japanese lexicon. Also, while it's earnest and gets a lot of stuff right, it makes some elementary goofs, talking about "phonetic" transcription when it seems to mean phonemic [within English phonology] transcription (it even uses slashes). I know next to nothing of Wikibooks but don't think that this is revisable into an "instruction manual" if you take that term to mean "howto guide"; if on the other hand "instruction manual" includes "textbook" and you want a textbook of a minor aspect of Japanese, something could be derived from this. -- Hoary 03:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You're right in your assessment of the article, but yes... textbooks are also covered by the WP:NOT#HOWTO concept; WP:NOT#TEXT also links to the same place. The only difference between this and an overt guidebook is that it's not written in the second person. All you have to do is substitute, "this is how it is done," with "this is how you do it," and the problem becomes clear. ◄Zahakiel► 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at wikilinks to this, many of them are to give more information about phonetic shifts when English words are transliterated to Japanese. Clearly, there's some need for an article that does that. Keep and edit to remove the instructional framing but keep explanation of the sound changes, with examples. (I'd be bold and offer to do it myself but, not knowing Japanese, I'd butcher it.) —Quasirandom 16:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Article content afoul of the no original research policy. --Aarktica 23:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team killer[edit]

Completely original research. Talk page discussion concludes that there are no reliable sources for this concept. BirgitteSB 17:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if any of it can be reliably sourced (and at present, none of it is), the right place for it would be the Player killer article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very common term in Counter-Strike in particular, and its a very popular game. What has been written is actually factually correct, and whilst it does contain elements of OR all this says is that the article needs to be copy edited and citations found. Operating 15:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if possible, otherwise Delete. Jtrainor 22:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though no sources its an extremly common term and happens frequently. With sorces it could defintly be a decent article ForeverDEAD 01:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like WP:NEO. I would merge. --Endless Dan 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I first came across the term in 1999 whilst playing CS. Operating 04:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I got here from reading the article on griefers; while both aren't written very well (I'd like to think the gamers who write these articles are not writing as well as they are capable of), I think this article is valuable for the lay person trying to get a better understanding of online play and its terminology. --216.9.250.104 01:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query It sounds like this belongs in Wiktionary? Is there a page on it there? GRBerry 14:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction and fantasy[edit]

This is just an essay and not really any kind of an encyclopedic article. I can't see how to begin sourcing an opinion piece like this which makes me think it doesn't belong here at all.BirgitteSB 17:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree what we have is pretty useless. I think an article could be written on the relationship between the genres, attempts to define them, etc. - but this isn't it. I could probably write one myself, but it would require more effort than I currently feel like putting out. Brianyoumans 17:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. The relationship between the two genres is already discussed in Science fiction#Speculative fiction, fantasy, and horror. Clarityfiend 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice essay, but Wikipedia is not the place for nice essays, no matter how well written. Mandsford 20:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't see any need to have an article on something and something else when separate articles exist and are cross-referenced. Even if you could write an article on the relationship between the two genres, I'd still be unsure about giving it a separate page unless it was notable independent of the individual subjects. Cosmo0 20:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Generally, fantasy with sci-fi elements falls under space opera. This essay tries to dress up the intersection as something other than the majority viewpoint. --Dhartung | Talk 20:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just more WP:OR for the wood pile. Burntsauce 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as per WP:NOT#OR. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No opinion on current article, but science fiction and fantasy (sf&f) is often used as the name for a joint genre, so it would be ideal if a redirect or dab page were left in place if this article is deleted. Espresso Addict 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Science fiction is notable as a literary genre and so is fantasy, but this article is so vague about its topic that it doesn't make sense to keep it. (I'm pretty sure we already have articles about the two genres already, too.) 20:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rray (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 deleted by User:Citicat PeaceNT 04:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Coast Resurrection[edit]

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

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • East Coast Resurrection is an article which will be deleted in October 2007 -- RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination, thy Will be done. Burntsauce 22:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angels of Destruction[edit]

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

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Dennis' Debut Album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cheri Dennis' Debut Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dive Deep (Morcheeba album)[edit]

Dive Deep (Morcheeba album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godz Plan[edit]

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

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another crystal ball in need of some breaking. Spellcast 07:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland (album)[edit]

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

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Found Beauty[edit]

I Found Beauty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (Raghav album)[edit]

Identity (Raghav album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Killer (Tech N9ne album)[edit]

Killer (Tech N9ne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. KrakatoaKatie 17:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live 2 Tell (Original Soundtrack)[edit]

Live 2 Tell (Original Soundtrack) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence (except for IMDB, which is unreliable) Will (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live 1969[edit]

Live 1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album that presents no sources of existence Will (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - eo 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's just delayed, it will appear in a few months. Therefore, it's a perfectly valid article. If this article is being deleted, why isn't Chinese Democracy then? BGC 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This page, no references. That page, 24 references. Will (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    just added one BGC 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_October_10&oldid=1081101347"