Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Nowhere[edit]

Blogger who once owned a guitar shop (no relevant independent search hits) and released his music on "underground taping networks". A previous version of the article was deleted at AfD back in April 2006; this is from September 2006 so it probably isn't an exact recreation, plus it's had a speedy and prod removed so I'm listing it here. Thomjakobsen 00:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Again. NN. - Rjd0060 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't see any reliable sources indicating there's notability involved with this person. The article doesn't do much to assert notability, either. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Bearian 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no indictation of notability, neither for his music nor for his website, no sources, not verifiable. Same reasons as presented in the previous AFD. Melsaran (talk) 11:52, 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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs improv[edit]

The speedy was declined, because there appears to be some assertion of notability. The author of the article has provided reasons at the article's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:33, 8 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, W.marsh 00:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For now because of the info. on the talk page. That needs to be incorporated into the article promptly. - Rjd0060 00:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, WP:V, and so on. If kept, move to a proper name. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if talk page content is merged into article.jonathon 06:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consistent with policy Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and because the info on the talk page demonstrates notability. The flaws with this article seem to be related to the fact that it was contributed by individuals unfamiliar with Wikipedia style and procedures. The contributors need help in order to make the improvements suggested here. --Orlady 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources independent of the subject have been identified in the talk page, and the group has won a significant award in their field. -- Whpq 17:08, 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 delete -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How To Test Congruent and Similar Triangles[edit]

The first two paragraphs are from Triangle, the last line was copied from [1], and the rest is covered elsewhere. Delete Alksub 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A comparison of the title of this page and Wikipedia is not a "How to" guide is possibly relevant here. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki: To wikibooks or rewrite article to make it encyclopedic. Despite the title of the page, I don't think it is violating WP:NOT#HOWTO. - Rjd0060 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essentially redundant with Congruence (geometry), and written in a less encyclopedic way. No problem with transwikying if someone cares to do it, but it's probably not worth the trouble of trying to find somewhere to merge the content. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable very basic geometry. Should we also have an article on How to add, subtract, multiply and divide? Clarityfiend 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't open a can of WP:BEANS on us... Stifle (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Contains basic geometry that should be in other articles -- Imperator3733 06:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if Transwiki to Wikibooks is not possible.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with xDanielx: redundant with Congruence (geometry). There's no point in merging or leaving a redirect from this name, which anyway is not capitalized properly according to our conventions. —David Eppstein 16:44, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LadsLads.com[edit]

No independent sources or indication of notability. Speedy deletion was declined for this article, although I sort of don't know why. P4k 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lofty claims of notability ("It claims to be "the most advanced...") are backed up by a single reference back to the domain in question. Yng varr 23:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
De-lad "200,000 million unique accounts" That's a lot of spam, lads. --Victor falk 23:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know why the speedy was declined either. Anyways, doesn't seem to be notable. - Rjd0060 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, and others. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a propaganda piece. Should have been speedily deleted. 200 billion unique users is funny; what other planets do they cater to? CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. JJL 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the speedy was declined as there was an assertion of ntability, so a request for sources to back up the assertion is appropriate. However, in googling around, I can find no reliable sources about this web site. -- Whpq 17:11, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee (D'Ass)[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 23:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication she passes WP:BIO. Don't click through if you have a cellulite aversion. --Dhartung | Talk 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. - Rjd0060 00:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article ~~does not claim notability and it~~ is unsourced and unverifiable. • Gene93k 15:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Botched notability claim found in article source code, appearance in 2006 AVN Award-winning video. Without evidence she played a major role in the film, Big Ass Party 2, WP:NOTINHERITED applies. • Gene93k 17:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn booty. JJL 01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 70 movies in 7 years is an inactive porn actress.jonathon —Preceding comment was added at 06:41, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burglish[edit]

Neologism with no sources. Alksub 23:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to understand what it's trying to say. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, incoherent. Seems to be a romanization hack used by Burmese speakers online. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What does it say? From the parts that I do understand, it is a neologism. - Rjd0060 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burmese English. Mandsford 01:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious original research. There are no reliable sources that document the use of the term "burglish". Melsaran (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prod'der. JuJube 06:29, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Pakes[edit]

The very nicely-written article does not demonstrate sufficient notability of the subject. He's been on a boat, but otherwise that's about it. Naturenet | Talk 21:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biographies of nonnotable individuals like Mr. Pakes tend to show signs of WP:COI. Given the author's contrib log here, I think a friend of this fellow thought it would be cool to put his bio on WP. It's too bad, I suppose. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO with a splash. --Dhartung | Talk 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nicely written but NN. - Rjd0060 00:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject's onboard service doesn't appear to be notable; if he moves upwards in cricket, then perhaps one day, but not at the moment. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tally Ho! --Sc straker 13:42, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Moon[edit]

Non-notable YouTube video and comic book. Unreferenced. Alksub 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent notability. Someguy1221 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (unreferenced and NN). - Rjd0060 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's unsourced and unneeded. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:47, 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 keep by WP:SNOW as passing WP:MUSIC. Bearian 01:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference Champions[edit]

Non-notable band per WP:BAND, 1 EP and 1 CD which is currently being marketed and accounts for most Google hits. No mention of any tours. One reference to an appearance on a TV show, no doubt due to good PR. ~~It's usually an indicator of non-notability when the WP article is in the first 5 listings of a Google search.~~ -- WebHamster 22:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it a indicator? If i search for Heroes, then i will probably get the wikpedia page for the tv show on NBC as one of the top results. That's just how Google works. This band seems to be notable enough for wikipedia. The band was recently on a popular late-night tv show [2], they have an EP and a new album out (which came out in July of 2007), their bassist is a former member of the popular alternative rock/metal band CKY...what more could you want for notability? I'm sorry, but this is a definate keep. dposse 23:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe it is not an indicator of non-notability if the article shows up within the first 5 Google results. I mean, I chose two bands at random: Metallica and The Beatles. Both had the Wikipedia result in the first five entries, specifically the second entry. It's just because Wikipedia is a highly used site. Anyways, I believe the appearance on Last Call and a member's connection to CKY should secure the band's notability. I don't see why the Last Call performance would hurt the band's notability; the band might certainly have good PR, but since that source is from you, it is just speculation. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument about non-notability because Wikipedia is one of the first five listings is not entirely valid. Pretty much any search I perform will turn Wikipedia in the first page. Try "George W. Bush", third hit [3],or Pink Floyd, second hit [4], even something as technical as "Sanskrit morphology" is the first [5] Yng var 23:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough ---- WebHamster 23:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They pass WP:MUSIC criteria #4, possibly #1 too (I found a Spin article, but haven't searched that hard for anything else). Torc2 06:48, 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Film Group[edit]

Delete Blatant advertisement. Nn film company that's only produced press releases. 0 finished films, and doubtful the ones planned would be notable. CSD removed by article creator. Only ref listed is companies website. Horrorshowj 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article creator should not have removed the speedy deletion template. I've restored the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he shouldn't have removed the CSD. However, due to his edits it no longer qualified for "no context". I switched it back to afd, since it now has some theoretical asserts notability. Still fails WP:N. Horrorshowj 23:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, every project is "in development" or "in production", so far there have been no releases. Yng var 23:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wheres the notability? - Rjd0060 00:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:You cannot delete an article about a valid company due to the fact that they just started. They have actually released a film and I'm finding sources for more information to improve the article. As far as "Blatant Advertisement," this is no more a blatant Advertisement than Sony, Disney, Yari Film Group, etc. The only difference is the age of the company. Finally, the article doesn't fail notability because take a look at what wikipedia says is notable. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I am providing more links to outside sources separate from the company. Thanks for your help guys. I hope this fixes your problems with the article.CleverOaf —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The five new sources that have been added include four articles written by George Escobar, the founder of this company. They aren't independent of the subject. Crazysuit 01:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, if you look at the seven sources used in the article. only 2 of them are from the source, Advent film group. Thus, 5 of sources are actually NOT connected to George Escobar or AFG in any way. CleverOaf
- The wdcmedia.com article clearly says By George Escobar, WDC Guest Writer. Also, the articles in christiannewswire.com and earnedmedia.org are exact copies of the wdcmedia.com press release, so of course they are also written by George Escobar. Crazysuit 02:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sorry, I stand corrected. The other articles are not affiliated. CleverOaf

Other article you mean. The only one that doesn't have Escobar on the byline appears to have been written from press releases of the two groups involved . Horrorshowj 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm wondering, is there a reason why you all so vehemontly want Advent Film Group off of Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverOaf (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Advent Film Group is a company that is rather new, thus they have only filmed one movie so far. They do have a movie scheduled for release, and it is going to be released. I personally know people who worked on filming the movie this summer. This article is very deserved, and AFG is just as notable as any small film group on it's way to being a big name. Please do not let this very informative article be deleted.71.199.18.72 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.199.18.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: I would like to add that the arguments you are bringing up against the advent film group article are really insignificant if you consider that hundreds of other articles on wikipedia are LESS documented than this article, Just take a look at a sample of legitimate articles on Wikipedia right now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yari_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Snowboards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Film_Group_Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonik_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Film_Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_group_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian_Radio_Film_and_TV_Group

If you are going to argue for the deletion of this article, I request that you also ask for the deletion of those articles, unless you are only using these arguments as an excuse to get rid of this article for other reasons, such as its religious nature. If that is the case, I will be taking this issue to the administrators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CleverOaf (talk • contribs) 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first 3 film groups have released multiple films with articles on Wikipedia. They may need better documentation, but they have notability. Winnipeg Film article needs a lot of work but Gnews [6] makes it pretty obvious they can meet significant coverage with articles over a 15 year span. PRODded Spanish Group because, like Advent, they've done nothing notable and have the lack of documentation to prove it. Burton Snowboards is the leading company in their fields and has been the subject of articles in 2 different, nationally distributed magazines that are also WP:RS. The relevance of your argument is what exactly? Horrorshowj 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. shoy 03:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Considering this article was just written, it is amazing how quickly it's been nominated for deletion. The article itself is only in stub format and hasn't even had a chance to be properly developed and sourced yet. The company itself is most certainly a notable startup film company and is at least as deserving of its own article as any of the other similar companies already linked above. I would say the apparent animosity toward this articles is due to religious and political bias not any actual lack of notability, and I ask the administrators to try to make a fair call on this and give the article a chance.--DebateLord 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, claiming religious bias without having any backup for it is a bad idea in any discussion, let alone a deletion discussion. The commenters above all seem to be basing their viewpoints on Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Personally, I feel this should be a delete as the company does not appear to meet any of the requirements in the corporation notability guidelines at this point, especially as I only found one independent report regarding the company. If they receive further coverage in reliable sources, then the discussion could be revisited at that time. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tony Fox regarding notability of organizations and companies for this film group. The sources that have been added to the article do not establish notability for this group, as they are not objective and independent sources that provide significant coverage about it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated and Notable After Mr. Fox's comment, I have completely updated the sources and there are now four sources that are not from Advent Film Group or George Escobar. These establish notability under wikipedia's requirements. CleverOaf 17:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry I don't agree. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, I mean that the sources are not reliable. I am also of the opinion that the group is insufficiently notable. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - how are the sources not reliable? I've looked at that article and the sources are fine according to that article. And, once again, why are you of the opinion that it is not notable, because it isn't famous yet? which by the way is NOT the same thing as notability. CleverOaf 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked all the references and they do not establish notability in my view. The link to The Internet Movie Database does contain only one link to a film that had status "in post production" since August. The references need to be cleaned of the Escobar articles. The remaining references are web articles mainly about the plans of the Advent Film Group for the future. This in my eyes is not enough to establish notability for a corporation. There are no products at the moment, only plans. The article may be recreated after the corporation created a name with its products. Neozoon 23:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no actually finished movie; no sources to establish notability; no article. — Coren ^(talk) 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, Advent Film Group does have a finished production that is on sale now.

If you look at their website (http://www.adventfilmgroup.com/Projects.html) you can see that "Come What May" has been shot and is in post-production but not yet released. The documentary, Soli Deo Gloria, however, has already been completed (actually is in its second edition) and is being sold both by independent retailers (http://www.speechsupplies.com/Soli_Deo_Gloria_p/300.htm). DareToDebate 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'd like to keep the article but can't justify it. This is a startup company with an unusual approach to creating movies. If it works out, and the data can be independently verified, it will be a notable company. If it doesn't, it still might end up like Thief in the Night.jonathon 06:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article reads like a PR exercise.--Gavin Collins 09:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notahle someday real soon isn't notable now. Vgranucci 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable right now. When the movie is released and if other independent sources can support notability, then it would work for an article. Not yet, though. Mike6271 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY with better sourcing. Bearian 23:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and self-promotion. Biruitorul 03:48, 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 -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Wyman Group[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. No references, and was created on the same day the company was created (May 9). The creator has made no other contributions. Biruitorul 22:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not following WP:Corp, missing references Neozoon 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Predictably, the contrib log of the original author demonstrates a clear conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN cheap advertisement. The obvious COI helps us to get this deleted. - Rjd0060 00:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as reads like a press release.--Gavin Collins 09:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, non-notable company. Keb25 09:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no notability shown, no tangible products: yet another consulting firm using Wikipedia for self promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Oliver Wyman Group, formerly known as Mercer Oliver Wyman, formerly known as Oliver Wyman and Company, is a renowned strategy consulting company which specializes in the field of finance and risk management. I don't know how to clean up this article or reference it but I can tell you they recruit heavily at the Ivies. Aricialam 17:02, 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 CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of riddims[edit]

Non-notable listing Mhking 22:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable on WP standards Neozoon 23:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think it should be merged to Riddim because the list is incomprehensible to me anyway, and would require a lot of work to make it useful to a general audience. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly speedily, since it's a re-creation of an article previously AfD'd. It's not the exact same text, though, as this current version features tables and a lot less context than the old one. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a re-creation of a AfD'd article. Same article with less info and context = G4 Bfigura ^(talk) 01:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Can never list all 'riddims', and there are websites dedicated to this sort of thing. An encyclopedia isn't the place.--Michig 08:07, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Arreola[edit]

NN biography of basic cable/local television sportscaster that lacks multiple independent sources for verification despite being flagged as potentially non-notable and having references requested no less than three times in the last three months. Sole extant source only makes cursory mention of the topic at hand. MrZaius^talk 22:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Clearly Fails WP:BIO's standard for journalist TonyBallioni 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably Non-notable, no references, fails WP:BIO standards Neozoon 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker 12:40, 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. DS 20:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's Angel (Lindsay Lohan Album)[edit]

Appears to be a hoax or at very least crystalballery. Searching Google for "Lindsay Lohan" "Nobody's Angel" results in precisely 221 hits, the only relevant ones I could find being either WP/WP mirrors and message board postings (which appear to be sourced from this article anyway). Fails WP:V. Kurt Shaped Box 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverifiable. And WP:CBALL too. - Rjd0060 00:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not even on Motown, she's on Casablanca Records. Not verifiable and WP:CRYSTAL. Nate 00:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given her track record, this is even more iffy than most speculative offerings. Wasted Time R 03:03, 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. DS 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad 2 Be an Angel[edit]

Probable hoax. Searching Google for "Lindsay Lohan" "Bad 2 Be an Angel" results in precisely five hits - two WP pages, a WP mirror and two message board postings sourced from WP. Kurt Shaped Box 22:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverifiable and WP:CBALL. - Rjd0060 00:51, 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 No consensus — and a general collapse into personal attacks and legal posturing. --Haemo 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ciesla[edit]

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines of wikipedia

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

.

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

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

The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Luther[edit]

Contested prod, "lowly rated chess player, no claim to notability." Note that there is full page protection on the article to deal with massive vandalism. - Ricky81682 (talk) 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable on WP standards Neozoon 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. No sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Rjd0060 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per original prod. Skarioffszky 08:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. StaticElectric 04:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even appear in the USCF top 100, much less any FIDE list. Missouri chess is small potatoes, if Luther was one of the top candidates for the US championship, then he would appear notable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons given above: no notability, no reliable references. SyG 06:38, 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 05:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Jay Harris[edit]

A long unencyclopedic essay on the subject's theory linking serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer to the murder of Adam Walsh. The article contains no biographical information whatsoever concerning Harris. Victoriagirl 21:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and WP:OR. - Rjd0060 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hangs like a WP:COATRACK. --Dhartung | Talk 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Wikipedia is not for original research. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 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 Is It Legal#Whodunnit?. --Angelo 00:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whodunnit? (Is It Legal episode)[edit]

Prod removed by author without comment. No real-world notability asserted, completely unsourced, therefore violates WP:EPISODE. shoy 21:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Death In Hounslow

Delete all: Does not meet WP:EPISODE. - Rjd0060 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Wikipedia:Television episodes#Dealing with problem articles. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then recreate as redirect to the season/series. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see nothing wrong with these articles. They're too long to be merged into one big article. VoL†ro/\/Force 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. shoy 20:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)r[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by clear consensus and WP:HEY as passing WP:N and WP:RS. Bearian 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.B. Funkeys[edit]

This article is total spam, an advertisement for a product, written pretty much entirely by paid editors working for IntraPromote. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Inappropriate_paid_editing_on_Wikipedia_by_Intrapromote. The game is not very notable, with only one newspaper article mentioning it. It would be easier to start over if someone wants an article, than to remove all the WP:COI spam from this one. Dicklyon 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dick, as much as I dislike articles written with a COI, I think the New York Times article makes this one clearly notable:
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/technology/23funkey.html?_r=1&ex=1186632000&en=9c7d14727b42a560&ei=5070&oref=slogin

--A. B. ^(talk) 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Despite the COI, it is sourced by a reliable venue (NY Times). - Rjd0060 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone please explain to me why there is a conflict of intrest?--JRTyner 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See that long link above, about conflict of interest and Intrapromote, the commercial spammers who wrote it, where you already responded that it's not you. Dicklyon 22:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I read the pages linked to this one and based my reason to keep on them. I added it to the end of the list. --JRTyner 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this is apparently pegged as one of 2007's "hot holiday toys" and as such will probably just get created again. Notability outside of the NYT piece is marginal but the article is fixable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I studied the Wikipedia rules for deletion, and I came to this conclusion. The reason this article was put up for deletion is blatant advertising. Wikipedia defines blatant advertising as:

Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion. "

I do not see the U.B. Funkey page as a promotion for the toy. It makes no claims about the toy or sponsors it in any way. The page only expains the game and characters.
There is information on the page that the company has not promoted. Mainly what colors the Funkeys come in, and how rare each color is. They won't tell you this because they would rather you find out after you use them. This is one of the selling features, so this proves that it's not being promoted, but is being presented in a non biased encyclopedic form.
The page is set up as an encyclopedic entry. It details how the game is played. It has a biographic entry for each Funkey race. It is not selling anything.

For these reasons this article follows the Wikipedia standards and I believe it should not be deleted.--JRTyner 01:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep COI editing is not a reason to delete. I've edited out much of the advertising. There's a solid New York Times reference. Please watchlist this article and keep it clean. If any COI editors get snarky, let me know and I will talk with them. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You deleted consumer information that is next to immpossible for one person to collect. Please read my second reason above for keeping the article. There is no COI in the color tables because no one working for the company would want to give away what the rare colors are. I would also like to know why you delete two-thirds of the page, without even posting on the talk page. --JRTyner 06:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet [{WP:N]] (multiple independent sources) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless further non-trivial media coverage is quoted. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Even though I nominated it for deletion, it's now toned down to the point where it might be an acceptable article. I'd rather watch this one than risk another advertising version coming back. Only one independent source, but probably more can be found. Dicklyon 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This article can be resuscitated. Major concern is WP:NOR jonathon 08:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New York Times article source, Mattel toy company ownership [7], Toys-R-Us and WalMart hits on Google, PC Magazine reference[8]. Notable and worthy. Could definitely use some clean up. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 15:50, 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 deletion by Maxim (talk · contribs). No reason was given beyond the "hoax bio" speedy deletion tag placed on the article by WebHamster (talk · contribs), and hoaxing is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, but with the article already deleted anyone who wishes to continue the discussion would be better to do so at WP:DRV than at this AfD. —David Eppstein 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian nedrevåg[edit]

I tried to speedy this as nonsense but that was removed by an admin with no helpful notice. I now bring this here for non-notable. Yahoo! returned nothing of interest, but a few results in Norwegian. The article also appears to be created by the person in question.--Old Hoss 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This doesn't meet the criteria of being nonsense per the CSD guidelines, but it does possibly meet {{db-bio}}. I've tagged it for CSD as a hoax bio. ---- WebHamster 21:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Probable hoax. If not, it doesn't meet BIO. - Rjd0060 21:33, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Become a porn star

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1 by Reedy Boy (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Become a porn star[edit]

I was unsure if this article would qualify for speedy deletion, but It's clearly non-encyclopaedic. It's a "how to" guide. Beloved Freak 20:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant advertising trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia article. The only purpose seems to be the placement of external links to a commercial website. Cosmo0 20:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howden Church Of England Infant School[edit]

Well, I tried prod tagging, and was reverted. I tried redirecting, and was reverted. I've speedy-delete tagged other schools, been reverted and told schools can't be speedied execpt for copyvio. Here is a very short page on what Americans call a pre-school, utterly non-notable. As I have stated elsewhere, there are on the order of 1,000,000 elementary schools in the world. Sorry to clog up AfD with this one also. SolidPlaid 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note/Comment - I didnt get round to replying to you regarding the change to redirect. The way you did it - ie just change it, then didnt mark the talk page for speedy deletion. There was then circular redirects - Howden pointed to Howden Church Of England Infant School... Which is pointless. Reedy Boy 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn and wpnot:nfo, wikipedia is not the yellow pages. --Victor falk 00:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Victor falk. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something really significant appears. DGG (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:41, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International broadcasts of Criminal Minds[edit]

Blatantly fails WP:DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. Per MoS style guideline, avoid statements that will date quickly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases. -- Wikipedical 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. At most, the list of countries (and maybe the dates) should be moved to the main Criminal Minds page to illustrate the wide international appeal of the programme. Cosmo0 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The existence of an article isn't what fails WP:DIRECTORY, its the content. Broadcasting history is different than providing current TV listings. -- Wikipedical 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and extensive precedent. Otto4711 12:54, 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 speedily delete as A7, G4, G11... Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C. evan sackett[edit]

Does not seem to be notable. The only external link is to VisualCircle, which is "maintained and designed by Evan Sackett". Google search returned matches, but not the same person. Rjd0060 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - "Due to Sackett's low amount of publicity" just screams WP:COI to me. This article seems to be only written to promote him and his works and does not explain his historical significance or influence in art. → Hot Dog Wolf 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources available to demonstarte notability. The article "C. Evan Sackett" has been deleted before under AFD and speedily deleted. (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Sackett). --Beloved Freak 20:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (WP:NOTABILITY). Self-published author who, in the words of the article itself "is not yet very popular", is "virtually unknown to the literary world" and has a "low amount of publicity". Several pages on this subject have previously been deleted (Evan sackett,Evan Sackett 3x), as admitted in the article. Cosmo0 20:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. To wit: "[h]e is so unknown that Wikipedia, itself, has rejected numerous articles posted about him on the grounds that he isn't "notable enough." Give him credit for creativity. He's notable for being unnotable! If that's a new criterion, I'm starting an article on myself. Freshacconci | Talk 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So being so unnotable is in itself notable. That would be something, wouldn't it? Nice comment, gave me a laugh. - Rjd0060 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Doesn't this qualify under CSD G4 as a recreation of a previous deleted article? Whether or not it does, I also suggest salting the space when it is deleted. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree that salting may help, but each time the page was created, there were slight variations to the name, so it may be pointless. - Rjd0060 01:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've rarely seen an article offer up its own deletion opinion like that... Speedy delete and salt, for what it's worth. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 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 deleted Nonsense or G7 or A7 or something. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LazyTown 2.0[edit]

This appears to be a hoax article. There are no references, no mention of the new show on lazytown.com, and no google matches for 'Lazytown 2.0' other than a YTMND link. Stephanie/Sportacus sex is a popular troll meme, so this quacks like a hoax in every reasonable regard. CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is a blatant hoax, consisting of nothing more than fanon at best, and should be deleted immediately. --HamatoKameko 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additionally, this user has vandalized LazyTown-related articles in this fashion repeatedly, and should be dealt with accordingly. -HamatoKameko 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G5, article was created by a banner user. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel. Creator is a known hoaxer. Admins can check the users deleted history, at least three articles were created this weekend and deleted under the same criterion. Yng var 19:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: It was tagged for A7, but I changed it to g5. - Rjd0060 21:35, 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. DS 12:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X: Curse of Raven Radix[edit]

Hoax article that was created and speedied four times on October 1. Now the indef-blocked creator is back with a slightly different user name, doing it again. Can we get a salt on the article and a block on this new incarnation of the user, please? See also the AfDs for other hoaxes by the user, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby-Doo 3: Return of Monsters and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Green. Deor 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax created by indef-blocked creator who I have just reblocked as an obvious sockpuppet. --Core desat 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nobody likes hoaxes. --Nehwyn 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per deletion log, obvious hoax/vandalism. - Rjd0060 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree it should be salted. - Rjd0060 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt-per nom TonyBallioni 22:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mmm, hoaxalicious! Now with extra salt, hopefully. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:46, 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. Being married to someone notble or having written two regional history books of unclear notability is not a valid notability claim. Also, the article has no reliable sources except for one regarding her marriage. MaxSem 06:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marion van de Wetering[edit]

The article is completely unsourced. A google search doesn't come up with any noteworthy information about this person, beyond the fact that her 2 books are actually for sale. Atlan (talk) 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: And tag for sources. - Rjd0060 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of notability, and having a notable husband and uncle doesn't provide it. Citation tags have been added in the past, without being addressed; prod tag was removed by an anon. I can't even find a single review of either of her books online, so they can't be very notable. Deor 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't look into it but by the nom's comment, it seems he can assert that she actually has published books which are for sale. - Rjd0060 19:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that her books are for sale, but she doesn't meet the standards of WP:BIO, which requires that there be multiple, independent, reliable sources about her. I was just pointing out that she can't be considered notable as the author of two books that themselves lack notability. Deor 19:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can write a book and put it up for sale. That in itself does not make one notable.--Atlan (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her books were published by a major Canadian publisher, Dundurn. If people can't research a bio, they should try harder rather than just kill the entry. If Wikipedia is simply all about what's on Google, why shouldn't people just use Google?209.217.75.209 22:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Thus, neither the publisher her books were released under, nor her being the neice of a notable person, make her notable. Kesh 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Delete While I can't agree with the description of Dundurn as a major Canadian publisher (van de Wetering was published under their Hounslow imprint), I will say that they publish some very fine and significant books. That said, whether the subject is self-published, published by Dundurn, or published by Random House is of no consequence as the article makes no assertion of notability. In short, it provides no indication that van de Wetering has "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject", as called for in WP:BIO. ~~If no such references can be found, I suggest that much of the information be added to the article on her husband Mark Bourrie.~~ Victoriagirl 23:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bourrie article already says that she's a law student and names the books she wrote (although the publication dates in the two articles don't match). What additional information do you think needs to be included there? Deor 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Apologies, I hadn't bothered rereading the Bourrie article when making the suggestion. I've adjusted my previous comment accordingly. Victoriagirl 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Uncertain The book on Ottawa is held by 22 libraries, on Kingston by 13, in World Cat. This includes does not indicate much in the way of notability. Is there any information about sales? about reviews? In these absence of something notable about the books, the mere existence doesn't make for notability. I am a little startled the article has been around so long without such information. 19:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction WorldCat does not include Canadian public libraries (unlike for the US) , though it does include academic ones. checking directly, the Kingston public library has 6 copies of the book on it, none of Ottawa. Ottawa has 13 copies of the one on it, and 1 of the Kingston. Toronto p.l. has several copies of each. The 2 medium sized public libraries in Ottawa checked (Kitchener & London) do not seem to have either. Going further afield in some very large public libraries, Winnipeg has a copy of the Ottawa book, Calgary has both. There is a Canadian Union Catalog,[9] but it does not in practice seem to include most public library holdings. I conclude the books are of mainly local interest. I would still like to see some reviews cited, or some sales figures. That might make the difference DGG (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not famous, but certainly notable to a certain regional audience. Dominic J. Solntseff 21:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)— Dominic J. Solntseff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as the only reference is about her marriage to someone notable. Bearian 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, her notability comes from her books. There is some serious sexism happening on this page among people who keep referencing back to her husband or believe her identity should be buried in his by merging the entry.Dominic J. Solntseff 19:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. It's not sexism on my part, but her books are non-notable, and she has no other cited source of notability. -- Kesh 20:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not to you. But you might ask why Wikipedia has so many pages on minor punk bands and so few on authors. Books that you haven't read may, in fact, be notable and quite important to others. Dominic J. Solntseff 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is irrelevant. If your second point were true, we'd have verifiable sources of that notability. None have been produced. -- Kesh 23:26, 20 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 A1 and A3 as the article is only an infobox, and was created by a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. --Core desat 18:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby-Doo 3: Return of Monsters[edit]

A rumoured film that cannot be substantiated -- the film's reputed stars have announced they're not doing it (in 2004) -- the links lead to a completely different movie -- does not meet the WP:MOVIE requirements since I cannot substantiate this is even in production. Accounting4Taste 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. Fails WP:V. Additionally, aside from an infobox, there's no content. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 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--JForget 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevator etiquette[edit]

Rather sweet in a way. Reminds me of Victorian etiquette books. But totally unencyclopedic surely? I did suggest a move to Wikibooks but the author disagrees. -- RHaworth 17:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, even for behaviour in an elevator. Plus, it's unsourced; such an article could only be appropriate if it was a sourced study of typical behaviour in elevators. Nyttend 17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is somewhat quaint, I agree. But as above, not suitable for Wikipedia and unsourced. Trebor 17:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prescriptive and unencyclopedic essay. I would second your suggestion for a transwiki to Wikibooks, but the content seems to be largely cribbed without attribution from elevatorrules.com, thus WP:COPYVIO. --Dhartung | Talk 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vgranucci 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOWTO. Shame - it made me smile - but as Nyttend says, it's inherently unverifiable. Encyclopaedia articles describe what is, not one person's opinion on what should be. Cosmo0 22:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yikes, fascism comes to riding an elevator. Polite is a matter of opinion; I like the idea of not holding an elevator door open for someone approaching unless there's a "consensus" of the riders. Consensus here is that this article ain't gonna catch the car. Mandsford 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely how-to material and unencyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify This is a nice essay based apparently on the author's personal observation and expressing a definite point of view. It is prescriptive, where an encyclopedia should be descriptive. Transwikify it. There could be an encyclopedic article on elevator etiquette, but this isn't it. Please stand clear of the closing AfD... --Ssbohio 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some content was found on a humor page at St. Olaf College & on ElevatorRules.com (as previously mentioned). Placed a {{db-copyvio}} tag on the article. --Ssbohio 23:57, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triskelion (sport)[edit]

Article gives no reliable sources, and a Google search revealed no other reliable sources. Nyttend 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on the soccer field one day when you have too many people (or whatever). --Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever actually played this game? The inventor doesn't seem to make any such claim. If not, it's just non-notable fiction. Cosmo0 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, questionable notability, possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 17:53, 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 Merged and redirected to Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons). What happens to that page after this is unclear. CitiCat^♫ 03:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emmantiensien[edit]

Contested prod for a single sentence article about a fictional god. I am also nominating the following article for the same reason:

These articles have no content, context, analysis or secondary sources to demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia.--Gavin Collins 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there an appropriate article about gods in D&D that these can be merged into? I agree with Gavin that they probably don't warrant their own article, but I'm not familiar enough with D&D articles to know where these might be merged rather than just deleted. Rray 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions. --Gavin Collins 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both into Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons).--Robbstrd 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect These don't warrent seperate articles. Sources need to be added, and links to the Scottish mythos they are based on, but that can be done with an article cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlo Lomon (talk • contribs) 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Robbstrd & Redirect per Turlo Lomon. BOZ 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following a prod, I attempted a redirect earlier today to List of Greyhawk deities and was reverted on it. Then the prod was removed, and hence the AfD. <shrug> No skin off my back. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As fair warning, I would suspect that Seelie Court (Dungeons & Dragons) has the same notability problems that this article has. --Craw-daddy | T | —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:27, 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 Delete--JForget 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Dominion[edit]

New article about an alleged secret society, to which religious intolerance and clashes with notable secret societies are attributed. Complete lack of sources, which are of course particularly important in this context. Prod deleted by author. Nehwyn 17:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, if they're secret, there will be no sources. Likewise, if they're secret, they surely don't want their secret blasted out all over the internet! Yng var 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the Skull and Bones and Bavarian Illuminati must be pretty mad at us - their articles do have sources after all. A friendly FNORD to anyone listening in! ;-) --Nehwyn 17:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete yet, all I'm asking is for some time to get "more Valuble" information. I do think it's shitty that you guys want to delete an article on something that you guys didn't have any information on beforehand. But I tried TXguy2608 17:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment comes from the article author, of course. Articles on Wikipedia must meet minimum quality criteria, including citing reliable sources, which are absent in this case. Can you provide any verifiable source that this alleged secret society indeed exists, and that it is in any way notable? --Nehwyn 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do got a source who is the guy who first told me and showed me proff of this societies exsistance. I will give you hsi name in e-mail personaly if he agress to it. That's why I said please give me a day to get in touch with him. I'm sure he wouldn't mind speaking with you. I just don't want to throw his name on a public website without his permission do to privacy. --TXguy2608 18:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you shouldn't make his details public, but that's not the point - even if you did, that would be your own research into the matter, and not an acceptable source on Wikipedia. Please, do take time to read the WP:RS page! --Nehwyn 18:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the info I got is my own research and even if i got some other sources it would still be my own research. I've tried finding information on the internet and even with local Police Departments. So far nothing other than the info I've already got on these guys, I'm sorry I couldn't live up to your sites extream standards and I do apologize if I'm coming across as rude to you it's not my intentions. But like you I to was skeptical when I was first told about them because I'd never heard of it before. However I've seen the proof and will add what i know about them in my book. I use this site all the time when looking up information and since i saw that it was not on here I decided that I could finally contribute something but seems thats not the case. My source is a man who's sister was a member of this organization back in the 1990's before she died in a car acident in 2000, He showed me a ring that apparently they all wear along with some cloths that they suposevly use in some kind of ritual. --TXguy2608 18:22, 13 October 2007

I see your point, but really, Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for original research; we only accept secondary sources. If you want to expose these people on the web, create your own blog (it's easy to do today). Feel free to recreate the article if you do discover verifiable sources, or if your book gets published (that would make it an acceptable source under Wikipedia policies). In the meantime, you can still contribute to Wikipedia by making edits to other subjects of your interest - I'm sure you'll find plenty. --Nehwyn 18:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author admits it's original research so no reason to keep the article.--Atlan (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete OR per author. Kesh 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for a lack of notability and verifiability. Also seems to be OR-y too. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and completely lacking (and never likely to include, from the soudns of it) reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, admitted OR. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surprised this was not deleted as per CSD or as made up nonsense. Phgao 08:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that all I was trying to do is contribute to thsi site. But seeing as how I've been treated by staff and other members I've lost some respect for this place. I'm sorry and not trying to start a fight but this ordeal could have been handled better than it was. Thats all I've got to say TXguy2608 1:00, 15 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TXguy2608 (talk • contribs)

We do believe you were in good faith, and appreciate your will to contribute. Unfortunately, the verifiability requirements cannot be waived, and if you post original research, it will always be handled in this way - a deletion process. Should your articles meet the quality criteria, feel free to post them again! (In the meantime, please remember to sign your comments using four tildes!) --Nehwyn 05:39, 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. DS 12:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Green[edit]

This is a complete hoax -- IMDB gives no citation for this individual, let alone her claimed appearance in any of the films or imaginary television programs or claimed awards. Accounting4Taste 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, it seems to be a complete hoax. I can't find any reference for a "North Pole Elementary" TV series either, although a real school of that name does exists - even more suspicious. --Nehwyn 17:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-person before she becomes a former child actress hooked on drugs, which would be sad. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The user has been making several fake articles and was blocked over this, but is now back for more. -- RattleMan 18:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant hoax, creator has been blocked. Possibly speedy this since it was created by a sock of a blocked user. --Core desat 18:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

José Raeiro[edit]

Non-notable person. Of the two possible claims to notability, I can't find anything to show any significant contributions to either the OLPC project or astronomy. Pak21 17:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. No obvious claim to WP:N either. --Dhartung | Talk 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see him meeting WP:BIO, chatty tone, possible autobiography. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently still a graduate student. No published papers, no RSs. The involvement with the OLPC project might be notable, though, if there were any evidence for it. DGG (talk) 00:02, 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 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoBug[edit]

Non notable program, part of the walled garden created by Jorgon, probably the developer of said programs. J Milburn 16:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. The article does not assert notability. meshach 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless citations from reliable sources are provided to comply with verifiability. Stifle (talk) 17:55, 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 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoLink[edit]

Non notable linking program, and a rather spammy article. Google shows some first party sources, some unreliable sources, some trivial sources and some unrelated sources. In fact, everything apart from reliable sources. J Milburn 16:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that this was written by the same apparently single purpose account that wrote the recently deleted GoAsm, with a username similar to the developer of said programs. As such, I am also suggesting there is a conflict of interest. J Milburn 16:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of citations from reliable sources to establish verifiability. Stifle (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - violates WP:CORP, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Bearian 00:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goive[edit]

Spam Cheesemaniam 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly merging some content into Notions (Winchester College)) - Much as I would like "goive" (either the word or the website) to be considered notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, I don't think this point has been reached yet.Gingekerr 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just 68 hits when searching Google for goive + proxy. None meet our requirements for WP:WEB and WP:RS. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unattributed and non-notable website. Carlosguitar 21:54, 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 delete. GRBerry 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoRC (resource compiler)[edit]

Spammy article created as part of a walled garden of related pages by Jorgon, who has a similar username to the name of the developer of these programs. J Milburn 16:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to credible independent sources. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a non-notable software. I failed to find WP:RS for it. Carlosguitar 21:59, 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. As noted by a large part of the users here, all the given references (news articles) are basically reworks of Mensa dispatches regarding the subject; in addition, the subject is an evident example of what is described in WP:BLP1E and is therefore non-notable yet. --Angelo 01:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Brown (child prodigy)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of a previously deleted page on a 3 year old child prodigy. Subject has not distinguished herself in any field and her only claim to fame is a high score on an IQ test, and even this is not unusual: American Mensa, for instance, has 1300 child members (there aren't only 30 worldwide in Mensa, as claimed in the article). Mensa does not usually use any members as "poster children" for the organization and does not actively publicize "youngest members ever," so these arguments (presented in the original AfD) are also invalid as a claim for inclusion.

Additional comments: While the article provides citations, the references noted rehash the same press release from Mensa-UK, and do not provide any unique information on the subject--most repeat the same interviews word for word. Googling does not provide any further evidence of notability. Miss Brown has not even received significant attention within Mensa, outside of her own national group, and has not been included in the Mensa International Journal. DanielEng 16:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merely being smart is WP:NN.--Evb-wiki 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — read WP:NN#General_notability_guideline before you cite it, will you guys/gals? The child has received sufficient independent media coverage to satisfy both WP:NN and WP:V. --Agüeybaná 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the subject was in the news does not mean she is notable, as per WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. What "historical notability" does this child have right now? She is already noted on the Mensa International page as being the second youngest member, which is fine, but she hasn't done anything in her own right to warrant an article. DanielEng 17:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<WP:IAR> Well, I happen to think anyone at Mensa under the age of 4 is notable enough to have an article here. </WP:IAR> They should really ban deletionists here... --Agüeybaná 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, WP:IAR? encourages WP:CIV rather than circumvents it. --Evb-wiki 17:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was my comment uncivil? --Agüeybaná 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that an editor is a deletionist. And the proposal to ban deletionists. IMO. --Evb-wiki 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're the one forgetting to AGF here. 1.) I don't really think calling someone a deletionist is an insult 2.) I did not allude to any specific editor 3.) Deletionism hurts Wikipedia 4.) I was joking (yes, I know; my sense of humor is atrocious) :-) --Agüeybaná 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Joining Mensa isn't an accomplishment, though (and I say this as a member of Mensa myself). It means you scored high enough on an IQ test to meet the cutoff and you can afford the yearly membership fee. There are literally hundreds of thousands of kids, if not millions in the world, under the age of 4 who would meet that criteria, and it is not anything notable in itself. I'd add that no other Mensa groups besides Mensa-UK do anything at all to publicize their younger members, and that this particular child was not even considered notable enough to make it into the Mensa International journal or receive attention from any other Mensa group. DanielEng 18:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is very well written and referenced. You may also notice that there are two other language versions of the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "references" all just news items which repeat the same content from an interview with a psychologist and the Mensa press release over and over again. The writing of the article is not in debate here. DanielEng 20:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does that mean? Then why are you trying to delete it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Daniel is stating that the quality of the writing is not in question, the historical notability of the subject and the application of WP:NOT#NEWS is in question. --Evb-wiki 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you Evb-wiki: that is exactly what I meant. Someone put a lot of time into that article and I agree that it's well-written, but that does not mean the subject is appropriate or notable enough to be included in Wiki. It's not about the quality of the work, but about whether it belongs on this particular website. DanielEng 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate notability and references. Colonel Warden 20:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From child prodigy: A child prodigy is an individual who masters one or more skills or arts at an early age. One generally accepted heuristic for identifying prodigies is: a prodigy is someone who, usually around the age of twelve, displays expert proficiency or a profound grasp of the fundamentals in a field usually undertaken only by adults. — She doesn't satisfy these criteria so the crux of the article is flawed; as far as I can tell, her claims to fame are along the lines of: Being able to crawl and walk early (has this got anything to do with intellect?), being able to draw a perfect circle (a sign of insanity), and using the words 'mean' and 'arrogant'. I was expecting to read a list of all the mathematical theorems she had solved ad nauseam, the most nauseous thing about this girl is her revolting parents. Ca woodcock 23:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable child, press releases are not reliable sources, possible WP:BLP1E issues Kesh 23:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Mozart was a child prodigy. Miss Brown is merely a toddler who reportedly got a high score on a test, and who someone has seen fit to enter into an organization for which 2% of the people in the world qualify, which would be a select group of about 120,000,000 people. Not even the youngest Mensa member. Edison 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic case of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Crazysuit 02:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My nephew who at the age of 4 could sing all 16 Aussie Rules club songs, could name all players simply by asking him their jersey number, rattle off stats like you wouldn't believe, etc doesn't have a page, so neither should this one. If thats not a good reason, perhaps WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E will work. --Russavia 09:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete-Notability is not temporary, will this little kid be notable in 30 years,probably not, speedy because it is recreation of previously deleted material. TonyBallioni 16:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough to me. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The absolute IQ given is I think correctly stated as the highest 1 in 500, which means there are millions of people with the same or higher. That is not enough for notability. Any notability would depend on the early identification of the value, and that seems like a very marginal basis for inclusion. 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true, the IQ given is high, but it's also a very run-of-the-mill gifted score. A 152 IQ is absolutely nowhere near the profoundly gifted or genius level, and on some IQ charts, is the first category after "above average." DanielEng 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because article is referenced and asserts notability in first paragraph. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that asserting notability is only good for avoiding a speedy deletion. Unless notability can actually be shown through verifiable sources, assertion is of no consequence. -- Kesh 17:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The BBC is not a verifiable source? Damn those sneaky Brits, I'm canceling my subscription. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See WP:NOT#NEWS. Just because there was a one-time article on the BBC and other articles repeating the same information in other news outlet, as a curiosity or human interest story, does not mean she warrants a Wiki page. DanielEng 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article makes a rather clear and strong claim of notability, all backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources. No matter how much people stamp their feet and shout to the heavens, the claim of notability based on achievement and age is undeniable, and the sources are unimpeachable. You don't need a 152 IQ to see that this article clearly satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 18:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of WP:BLP1E. She is only known for being smart, no other claim of notabilty, one article in the BBC doesn't claim notabilty. Jbeach56 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read the article as well as the discussion, the article has 7 references. Here in the discussion we are chatting about the BBC. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And all 7 references simply regurgitate, sometimes word for word, the same information as the BBC article and press release. They aren't unique.DanielEng 02:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NN#General_notability_guideline: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works." --Evb-wiki 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sorry, per Jbeach56. Bearian 01:16, 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. GRBerry 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RadASM[edit]

Non notable computer program. There seem to be a good few mentions online, but none of them are reliable sources, as far as I can see. J Milburn 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Virtually no context of this NN program. - Rjd0060 19:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert, no references, no context. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians in entertainment and media[edit]

I am submitting this page for your consideration per WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a directory. In particular, for consistency with the section on "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations." For this page I see no "clear grounds for deeming [this] cross-categorization (as compared to similar others) to be suitable content." Note that there is already a Category:Christians by occupation to cover such weakly-related correlations. So a reluctant delete. — RJH (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm against all articles like this because it baisicly exists for no other reason then to segregate people based on faith alone. Deathawk 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is not a directory TonyBallioni 22:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially unsourced, but the bigger problem is the criteria for inclusion. Is it limited to people like Willard Scott or Gavin MacLeod who speak about their faith in Christ without being asked? Is it more inclusive of people who professed to going to church in a Christian denomination? Regularly received communion or got saved? If it's a matter of a person using their celebrity status to promote the interests of being a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, etc, I can see where that would be relevant, in the same sense that a list of vegetarians or Habitat for Humanity volunteers would be relevant. If it's simply that they went to a church, synagogue, mosque, reading room, etc., I would agree with Deathawk that that's segregation Mandsford 01:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another nn intersection of categories. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not good list material (not a directory, unmaintainable), definitional problems per Mansford. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete not reluctant at all. Bulldog123 04:04, 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 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ivo Heuberger[edit]

Autobiography of a low-level pro tennis player now marketing sports goods. WP:NN, WP:SPAM. Evb-wiki 16:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN, spammy autobio. - Rjd0060 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented Switzerland in the Davis Cup [10].Nick mallory 23:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nick Mallory. The article's in a dreadful state, and hopefully someone will improve it out of sight, but the man played at the highest possible level. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs improvement per WP:BLP. Bearian 01:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have rewritten it as best I can. Fosnez 10:27, 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. A non-notable topic, and nobody has been able to provide evidence to the contrary. If some of the very well-researched background information from this article is required to merge into another article (such as Minsi Trails Council or to start an article on Pocono Summit, contact me via my talk page and I will userfy the article. Neil ☎ 09:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Minsi[edit]

A scout camp. There are no independent sources which cover this camp. There is such a thing as a notable scout camp - I have been to one, Gilwell Park. But this is just... a scout camp. Cruftbane 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge - It is a good article with a lot of history in it. Though the camp may not be particularly notable, there is a lot of interesting history behind the history of the camp. It also has a neutral POV, so it isn't an advertisement for the camp. It also doesn't meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. Mike6271 16:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because something is interesting does not make it notable. As you said the camp is not notable if the history is notable then it should have a seperate article to itself not be lumped together with a non-notable scout camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we merge the camp information into Minsi Trails Council, but create a separate article with the history of the geographic area? Mike6271 19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The debate of merging the article has already been discussed here and the conclusion was that the articles' importance and notability to stand independently has already been established. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before forming an opinion: Delete - If the scout camp is not notable, it does not deserve an article. If most of the interesting stuff happened centuries before the opening of the scout camp (and before the foundation of the Boy Scouts themselves), then one should convert it into an article about that geographical area or, if such an article already exists, merge the material in that article. --Goochelaar 16:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is full of weasel words about the "proud traditions" of the camp, which makes it read like an advert. While the history section is interesting and well-written, it has zero citations. It also doesn't need the dozen scout badge images (aren't those designs copyrighted to the BSA anyway?). Delete as non-notable, and adcruft. Kesh 23:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the badges are not copyrighted, owned, designed or even made by the BSA national; they are the property of the camp but have been released into the public domain by the camp. MinsiPatches 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep - This article is an important component of the WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Scouting. The decision to create the article was carefully considered, and it was previously agreed that the article strongly merited stand-alone status. That continues to be the case. Some reworking to remove any "weasel words" and to add cititations (or citaiton needed tags) should be done to improve the article. But it should not be deleted. There are many independent sources that cover the camp, included several print sources, books, and other publications on the history and current state of Pennsylvania and Scouting. The subject's notablity has already been established; and it does not meet any category in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy. CampMinsi 04:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there might be a conflict of interest here. While you have the right to participate in the discussion it should be noted that out of your roughly 220 contributions all but nine have been related to Camp Minsi in some way and that your username is the same as the articles TonyBallioni 16:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any claim to notability happened before the camp was formed and has no relation whatsoever to this camp TonyBallioni 16:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazingly detailed but still of questionabe notability. Furthermore, there do not appear to be any references to verify the article. Stifle (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article has been deemed a notable and important article as part of WikiProject PA and WikiProject Scouting -- it is just as notable as many of the other individual camps or schools or parks that have their own articles. If references are needed to verify the article add {{fact}} tags to indicate what exactly needs citing. If things are POV or read like an advert, reword them (or remove them). If "too much" of the article focus on the pre-camp history of the land, clean it up. The article may not be to the "perfect" Wiki writing standards right now, but it should be improved and fixed rather than deleted due to its few current faults. It is a notable subject matter and just as important and notable as other subjects, camps, schools, parks and locations with their articles' existence being supported by the Wiki community. MinsiPatches 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC) — MinsiPatches (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Please do not engage in votestacking by sending a mass message only to people who support the notability of this article (as is seen in your contributions) TonyBallioni 20:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- If this is the case, please show us what shows the camp's notability. Because it is not apparent in the article. -- Kesh 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for notifying me about this discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good case for projects not having total autonomy. The article is mostly about the history of the general area before it became a scout camp, and the material on the camp is purely routine. No assertion of more than local importance in the Bethlehem Pa. area. As for adding reference tags, every paragraph in the article needs one. But they still wouldn't show importance. DGG (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable and passes the google test. As to the merge, under the guidleines set forth at Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations, it merits its own page. I also doubt the objectivity of the nominator (whose name gives away his bias). --evrik ^(talk) 19:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)::[reply]

Comment How does it pass any of the standards Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations? ~~Also it is important to note that you were recruited to comment on this page by MinsiPatches~~ TonyBallioni 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment First, I think the article need a lot of work, but the authors have clearly put some effort into it. It could also use some referencing and some copyediting. That being said … there is sufficient information here to make the article notable, though not all the information in the article needs to be there.

Wikipedia:Notability - Non-commercial organizations talks about how "Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split. This should occur as a top down process."

The Minsi Trails Council article would be cluttered with the introduction of the information from the camp. Rather than deleting this article, it should be heavily copyedited so that it presents the facts and not sound like a brochure. --evrik ^(talk) 20:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minsi Trails Council article has all the information that Camp Minsi should have if we deleted all the history that has nothing to do with the scout camp(the history might be notable in a separate article of its own, but should not be stuck with a scout camp whose only connection is geographic area.) After the irrelevant history section is taken out of the picture it is clear that this article is not notable and could easily fit within the Minsi Trails Council if anything more than what is there now is needed. TonyBallioni 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment The history does not have nothing to do with the scout camp - it has everything to do with the camp. Many of the buildings in the camp are from the lumber and ice industries. The cabins of the 1700-1800s have been used for camping and other programs since the camp opened. The events and culture of the Native Americans, Sullivan, the area hunters, lumberers and icers are a large and central part of the camp's culture, program and facilities. Campers visit the Indian burial sites, the march the path of Sullivan, they visit the remote cabins of the area hunters, visitors explore the extensive ruins and facilities from the ice industry -- the camp embraces and brings the history to life in its programs and activities. The history of the land is a huge part of what the camp is and what they focus on - and anyone who has gone to the camp would say the same. CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the history of the local area to be the most interesting part of the article - though it needs to be sourced. --evrik ^(talk) 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned yesterday interesting is not the same as notable. Yes the history might be interesting and might be notable in another article. This does not mean that the camp is notable and the notability of the camp is what is at issue here. TonyBallioni 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's notable, and it's interesting. You keep saying, "interesting is not notable." WP:INTERESTING is just an essay. Could you please cite some policy here?" If you can't you are expressing your opinion, and that is not policy. --evrik ^(talk) 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ONLYESSAY (also an essay) nowhere in the notability policy is the word interesting mentioned TonyBallioni 22:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article may have some faults (which should be fixed rather than deleting the whole thing), but I truly think the subject is notable. It is as notable as any other individual camp and any individual high school. I think the subject is worthy of encyclopedic coverage (if fact, Camp Minsi has been given coverage in two printed encyclopedias that I know of), although the current coverage here could use some help to be brought up to Wikipedia's standard. I think tagging the article to be cleaned up and improved (and then improving it) would be better than tagging it for deletion (and tossing the whole subject out). CampMinsi 23:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that schools and camps are note inherently notable themselves. How does this article meet our guideline? -- Kesh 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject - including (that I know of) two printed encyclopedias, 3 books on history of the Poconos, at least 1 popular guidebook to the Pocono Mountains, many newspapers, several national Scouting publications, many websites, and other sources. The article might not be well sourced right now, but it is a notable topic. CampMinsi 02:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Squamate 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Note User was recruited to contribute to this discussion by MinsiPatches TonyBallioni 14:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Your tagging of people's comments is discourteous, and an obvious attempt to discredit them. Please stop. --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an attempt to discredit anyone they have a full right to participate in the discussion however I do believe it appropriate to note if someone takes place in an afd because of canvassing because that could be consider a conflict of interest and should be noted. TonyBallioni 15:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, mind, since WP:JUSTAVOTE won't count in the final reckoning. Cruftbane 20:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing is just a guideline and is not set in stone. It is perfectly reasonable to let people who have worked on an article know of some impending action. Your continually noting how people found out about the AfD is a form of abuse and does not WP:AGF. --evrik ^(talk) 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MinsiPatches did anything wrong by alerting others that have contributed to the article about this. I was alerted with a message and the deletion tag even says to alert people invested in the article. But that issue is not really our focus here.

As for the deletion of this article: the first part of the deletion policy covers "Alternatives to deletion". I think it would be more prudent to have placed a {{notability}} and/or{{npov}} and/or {{verify}} tag on the article or even made a comment stating ones concern about the article on the talk page rather than jump directly to proposing deleting the entire article. This nomination came as quite a shock to me, as I did not think that the subject would ever be in danger of losing all coverage on Wikipedia. I've been working on the article for more than a year and have seen the article defended and survive a prior deletion proposal - so I thought that despite some faults the subject could still be covered by Wikipedia. The article needs some work done (possibly by people not personally invested or involved in the camp). There is research that can be done, the camp is a large part of the community of Eastern PA, and the Scouts of the NE region – it has been mentioned and featured in many PA, national and Scouting documents, books and publications. The notability and supporting information exists out there. The subject can be brought up and covered appropriately under wikipedia’s standards and criteria - although it may need some polishing and cleaning up. I think deleting the whole thing would be a step in the wrong direction here. I think that following some of the "alternatives to deletion" would be the more appropriate choice to foster growth and improvement of the subject and its coverage here. CampMinsi 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I can assume good faith for the people who were contacted by MinsiPatches I cannot assume good faith on MinsiPatches because of the fact that he only contacted those people who were on record opposing the merger and asked them to participate ignoring the two people who did not believe that the camp merited its own article; if he had invited these people I would be willing to assume good faith on his part, but her did not so this is a clear example of WP:CANVASSING. TonyBallioni 12:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article to establish that the camp is notable. Move the history section to appropriate homes IF it is referenced rather than OR. Nuttah68 12:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article is too big (the badges need to go, for instance), but a brief synopsis for a camp of this vintage and history is OK. - Richfife 22:22, 21 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 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despondent Transponder[edit]

A self-released album and the "independent" (read: unsigned) band that released it. No independent sources, no evidence of importance. Both essentially untouched since November last. Cruftbane 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per nom. Doesn't assert notability by saying "independent" and there are no independent sources. - Rjd0060 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 18:06, 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 all. because this was a batch nomination, I will consider undeletion of individual articles if anyone can present arguments/sources on my talk page. W.marsh 03:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Hawkins Elementary School[edit]

This is a non-notable (nor does it assert importance) elementary school. Rjd0060 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

- Rjd0060 14:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody can fix this please. The links from the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 13 link to the old AfD, not the new one. However, the AfD templates on each page do go to the correct place (2nd nomination). Nevermind, I corrected it. - Rjd0060 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Every single one is eligible for CSD/A7.--Victor falk 15:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also "wikipedia is not the yellow pages" and "wikipedia is a collection of ecncyclopedic knowledge, not indiscriscriminate information"--Victor falk 15:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would have tagged them all a7 but thought there may be problems since they have all been here for a couple years. And a few of these were in a previous AfD (here). - Rjd0060 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, all give bits about enrolment, location, and principal, but other than a butterfly garden at one there's virtually nothing of note — and surely having a butterfly garden doesn't make something notable. Nyttend 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would also like to mention that I pulled all these from the Miami-Dade schools template, and there were several more elementary schools there, but I didn't list them because I felt they may have had some notability, therefore should be listed in separate AfD's. - Rjd0060 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for a lack of notability. Just run of the mill schools. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not every school needs its own article). Bfigura ^(talk) 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. We're paying for the "all schools are automatically notable" attitude that we had in times past. Stifle (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Stifle and Bfigura. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as schools have an incredible impact on the development of all of their students throughout the years and are their notable to large numbers of people and in significant ways. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think anyone is saying that schools haven't had a huge impact on a number of their students. Rather, the question is whether the schools are notable as defined in WP:N. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all As mentioned before, the attitude that all schools are notable should change. They provide an important service that does not automatically translate into a standard of notability which would include them in an encyclopedia. --Stormbay 20:51, 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 by WP:SNOW as not notable and without independent sources. However, in the odd chance it will become so, I am not salting right now. Bearian 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto: the abridged series[edit]

Non-notable YouTube fan series. TexasAndroid 14:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN - Rjd0060 14:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfiction only on youtube. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TAScruft. JuJube 15:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as web content with no notability asserted. May or may not be related to a similar bunch of youtube videos now deleted and salted under about a trillion different titles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if YGOTAS isn't notable, then NTAS definitely isnt Will ^(talk) 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I thought something like this had been canned earlier --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean these? Similar concept, different show, big steaming heap of salt building up. :) - TexasAndroid 14:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per my similarly colored friend. Burntsauce 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Non-notable and no coverage in reliable sources - just like every other article created about a fan-created "abridged series". NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:55, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phil Holmes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelmer Valley High School[edit]

does not meet Wikipedia:Notability and a google [11] produces nothing of note Valenciano 14:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable in any way. - Rjd0060 15:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak Keep: Based on new information on the Gymnastic Display Team. I don' think that is extremely notable; weak because there is no other notability present. - Rjd0060 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment American high schools are considered inherently notable. Could someone please find a policy statement on British high schools? Nyttend 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no policy at all for schools, be they high, American, elementary, Tanganykinan, or whatnot. The community has failed to reach a consensus on that. See Wikipedia:Schools So, there is only the general criteria (wp:not, wp:nfo, wp:n, wp:rs, wp:v, etc) for inclusion available. The fact that high schools tend to not get deleted is that their pupils make more of a fuss when they are nominated than ten-year olds.--Victor falk 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, most high schools are kept because they can be shown to pass WP:NOTE with a little bit of research. Not because their "pupils make a fuss". That said, I'm out of my element when it comes to British schools, so I'll just hope that someone with access to British newspapers can make a fair judgment about this place. Zagalejo^^^ 19:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the "notability" of most schools in wikipedia is that fleeting mentions of them have been made of them in local media coverage. And the vast majority does not even assert such notability--Victor falk 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm very sorry, but I'm afraid the fact that "The school are very sad to say that Mrs Godfrey will be leaving on maternity leave very soon and a temporary replacement will be needed" and "that the blue coated Mr Barnard" received "THE UNSUNG HERO AWARD" can not be considered worthy of an encyclopedic article. To be unsung is the fate of a hero. --Victor falk 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we are discussing the subject of the article, not the present content. If we have to, we can cut out most of the fluff and turn this into a stub. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all fluff. Have you looked at it? You have nothing absolutely to start with, nothing. Just the title. What makes Chelmer Valley not run-of-the-mill? Is it located in a medieval castle? Have pupils or teachers achieved something outstanding? Did a scandal with political repercussions happen there? Just say something that could make an article encyclopedic instead of a mere yellow poages entry.--Victor falk 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've looked at the article. The first paragraph, at least, seems to have legitimately encyclopedic information. It needs sourcing and cleanup, but it's a start.

A school doesn't have to be located in a castle or the site of a political scandal to be notable. As long as it's received non-trivial media coverage, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. This particular school has received some attention [12], although again, I would apreciate if someone with access to more English sources could chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-trivial? 42 google news hits? from the archives?!--Victor falk 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being...? It's hard to respond to a series of exclamations. Give me a real sentence or two.

In any case, I'm not saying those articles establish notability. I don't know much about the nature of those particular sources, which is why I'd still like for someone with more expertise in this area to chime in. I was just throwing the link out there to show that some coverage exists. Zagalejo^^^ 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was a bit stumped. In one sentence, "do you consider 42 hits from google news' archive non-trivial coverage". --Victor falk 04:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, newspaper articles are better than random mentions on the web. The fact that they're archived is nothing to *gasp* about; they're just as valid as any other sources. I do wish that there were articles from a broader variety of newspapers, which is why I haven't actually recommended to keep this article. But it is possible that more coverage exists somewhere, so I'm hoping someone with access to additional English sources could stop by this discussion.Zagalejo^^^ 04:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we've learned so far is that if that school was a news story, its headline'd be "dog barks at man".--Victor falk 06:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. —trey^{omg he's back} 21:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on improvements. —trey^{omg he's back} 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing wrong with it, keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelmsfordcityfc (talk • contribs) 21:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on Chelmer Valley HS could be written but this is definitely not it; there's barely a single salvageable piece of information in it. Sam Blacketer 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC) As rewritten this should now be kept. Sam Blacketer 09:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on WP:AFDP. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that that is no different than saying "Keep based on WP:ILIKEIT"? That essay (meaning just the opinion of those who wrote it, it is NOT a policy or even a guideline) is just saying what the common outcome for articles are (and even that I would debate, since high school articles are no longer kept most of the time).
  - Just curious, when was the last time a high school article was deleted? (For notability reasons, not copyvio or something like that.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, and a rather key one at that. Sure, WP:AFDP can be modified by anyone, at least in theory -- so can almost any policy or guideline. Precedents aren't strictly binding, but they are relevant in evaluating consensus, especially in cases like these -- high schools tend to share relatively similar degrees of significance, so the precedent is very much pertinent to the discussion. AFD has seen many hundreds, perhaps thousands of high school nominations, so the discrepancy in sample sizes of this particular AfD and the much broader precedent is significant. So no, my rationale wasn't WP:ILIKEIT, or anything of that sort; it was WP:ILIKEFOLLOWINGCONSENSUS. And do note the weak keep. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about the school. TJ Spyke 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple sources exist to write a credible article on a notable school. I've started to tidy the article up, though there is lots more to be done. The school is particularly notable for its Blue Gymnastics display team which seems to have a place in the Guinness Book of Records. References are still needed but will no doubt be available. Will try and do some more later if no one else gets there first. Dahliarose 11:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've now tidied up the article and added a section on the World Record-holding Blue Falcons display team. The notability of the school is clearly established. It's a potential Do You Know candidate for the front page if anyone has the time to expand the article five-fold within the next four days. Dahliarose 11:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Victor and Rjd. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 23:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dahliasose. VivianDarkbloom 21:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Notable school as shown by the Blue Falcons world record and public appearances. Rated Outstanding by Ofsted. Multiple sources meet WP:N. TerriersFan 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as written and referenced, notability is not asserted (and I don't by the inherent notability line), however if it's a specialist engineering school, that might confer some notability if good refs could be found, especially if any awards or special competitions have been won. AKRadecki^Speaketh 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewrite has established notability based on the gymnastics team notability. I still feel that further notability based on the engineering school is likely, and the article could use better references, but that lack is not, in itself, a reason to delete. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LordHarris 19:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of Wikipedia's goals is to attract younger users. We have templates for high schools with bunches of red links waiting for articles to be created. Nothing will turn off a fledging Wikipedian faster than to delete his or her high school. Older Wikipedians can help the younger ones by showing them how to do it. If you delete an article, chances are it will never be recreated, because whoever tries will get messages such as "You're are trying to recreate an article that has been deleted," etc, and will give up. So why not help them out. Suggest to the students that they dig into their local libraries to see what they can find out about the school, I've done this in the high school I graduated from as well as others that I came across only by a link in an article on the locality they were in. clariosophic 21:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced and marginally notable. I don't buy into the whole "all schools are notable" nonsense, but this article passes in my book. ➪HiDrNick! 22:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice research, people! Zagalejo^^^ 23:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 05:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haxor Radio[edit]

Possibly nn show; name does not look real. OSborn^arf 05:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence it is real, no evidence to the contrary. AGF with reliability. KeepJJJ999 04:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable radio show. Some of the guests were notable, the show itself is not. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please...or update with more relevent info about hosts and it's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.73.181 (talk) 13:30, 5 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, W.marsh 14:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I initially closed this as a deletion, but relisting was requested on my talk page, so people can look for reliable sources on this topic. I don't see the harm in allowing another few days. --W.marsh 14:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced, no assertion of notability, this article is little more than a list of episodes. /Blaxthos 14:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN & Blaxthos ↑. No WP:RS and no context. --Evb-wiki 14:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating them all - WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Bearian 00:31, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Autrey[edit]

Non-notable author, tagged as an orphan since October 2006, Stub since 2005, no references in a BLP Toddstreat1 14:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability; BLP's must be properly referenced (regardless of content). /Blaxthos 14:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (NN). - Rjd0060 15:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as an author, his books are self-published. [13] [14] Bláthnaid 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I traced both novels to their self-published origins with iUniverse and thus they confer no notability. Doesn't meet WP:Notable. Accounting4Taste 17:38, 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 - or it was a no consensus for deletion. Changes were made seen by the discussion but sources and some expansion would be needed to improve the article.--JForget 22:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional diseases[edit]

Yet another collection of trivial fiction-listcruft. Fails WP:N and WP:FICTION, specifically:

...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".
— WP:FICTION

.

With no reliable sources, no "real-world content", and no notability, this list is original research and indiscriminant information. Wikipedia is neither in the business of summarizing plots nor cataloging fictional plot devices. For precedents, see AFDs here and here and DRV here.

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 13:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An interesting collection of information, but doesn't meet the guidelines listed above. - Rjd0060 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patient discharged Reliable, notable, verifiable sources are found in each opus' article. Delusions of source absence is a case of in-linitis, an obsessive crave for inline citations due a deficiency of hypertextual cognitive processes. A dose of {{Citations missing}} is sufficient as a palliative for this article symptoms--Victor falk 16:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an interesting and useful list. Just because it comes from multiple sources does not make it original research. If sources are needed, they can be added to the individual entries as has been done with List of longest suspension bridge spans This is a feature article yet the following statement is unreferenced:

So the top 23 bridges on this list are also currently the longest 23 spans of all types of vehicular bridges.

Where does one draw the line between referencing and over referencing.

One must be careful where one draws the line between original research and the simple compilation of existing research that has not previously been assembled in the same form. That is the purpose of an encyclopedia, to pull together existing data in a concise summary format. This list does exactly that. Additionally every entry is link back to one or more other articles which is in itself a type of reference.

Carrying the point forward, if this list is considered not notable due to its fictional content, then what of the 45+ articles in Category:Fictional diseases? Or do we say that if there is a category then there should not be a list. Lists provide a way to pull multiple entries together in a way that categories can not. Both are useful and serve their own specific purposes. Dbiel ^(Talk) 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You completely bypass the reasons given for deletion, namely the complete lack of "substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that deals with "information [that] describes the real-world aspects of the concept". A collection of non-notable items does not automagically become notable when grouped together.
"Interesting" and "useful" are generally not germane AFD arguments.
See the previous AFDs and DRV referenced above for a more complete dialogue of these points.

Cheers! /Blaxthos 19:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is exactly on point per your references but it should be noted that there are numerous sites that have made reference to this Wikipedia list. I agree that does not meet the notability rules but it does show the value of the list.

This compilation of fictional diseases was made possible by yet another great list from Wikipedia: List of Fictional Diseases. Posted by Marie Linder at: http://marielinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/will-bad-case-hypochondriacs-worry.html - 73k -

List of fictional diseases - Indopedia, the Indological knowledgebase. This is a list of fictional diseases, named medical conditions that do not exist. These include naturally evolved, accidentally man-made or intentional: http://www.indopedia.org/List_of_fictional_diseases.html - 19k -

Will work on finding better examples, out of time right now Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that the article does not meet our requirements for inclusion, but you assert we should keep it simply because some blogs and other sites reference it? /Blaxthos 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I do not agree, but I am going to need a bit of time to develop the point but for now reference to the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) which seem to me to have been met. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you don't agree? You just said: "I agree that does not meet the notability rules". /Blaxthos 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not flip flopping. You twisted my statement which was a reply to "does not meet our requirements for inclusion". My agreement was on the point of notability rules for articles, that though they apply to list, they do not apply in exactly the same way. And even if the list does not fully meet notability rules, notability is not the ONLY reason for inclusion or removal. It needs to be balanced with the other rules. Categories are not notable, but they are an important part of Wikipedia. Notability can be interpreted from many points of view. I simply acknowledge your POV regarding notability, not its application as to inclusion or removal of this list article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And back to the issue of notability; List of longest suspension bridge spans (a featured article) entries do not have any external links to "notable" sources only to self promoting sites, though nearly all do have their own article, does that mean that those without separate articles should be deleted; I think not.

Nearly all entries link back to other Wikipedia entries, where in most cases the referenced "fictional disease" is an important element in the article. This list pulls together all these similar Wikipedia entries that are not otherwise linked. Dbiel ^(Talk) 12:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FICTION and the numerous precedents (previous AFD/DRV) for the community's interpretation of your argument. /Blaxthos 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only are nearly all entries in this list completely trivial/nonnotable, but there isn't even an article to go with this list (==notability issues as a whole). All notable diseases are already included in the said category, so that information is not lost by deleting this list. Someone write an article first; then this list can be recreated with the non-trivial entries. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean that there is no article to go with it? It links to numerous articles, It has an opening section. It is broken up into different groups of lists. This seems to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)

Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles, and as such are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.

It seems to me that you are pushing the and others to a greater extend that should be applied to lists in general. It appears to me to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have also stated that "All notable diseases are already included in the said category.." Which would imply that at least some of the contents do meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I may be reading too much into your statement, but it appears that you are saying that since the category is there, that the list is not necessary or needed to which I strongly disagree. Dbiel ^(Talk) 00:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there is no article Fictional diseases (it's just bluelinked because it redirects to this list) that explains the notability and cultural impact of the concept. The intro basically says "Diseases are [insert definition], and the following are fictional," a trivial dictdef of the article title. I do not doubt "Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view etc" of this list but WP:NOTABILITY (or in this case WP:FICT). This is always a problem with fiction, because it already serves as its own (primary) source that satisfies all core policies, and wikipedia has no lack of knowledgable and eager fiction-editors (I am one). But everyone can make up fictional diseases in exponentially increasing numbers compared to real diseases, and with the exception of a few, all are non-notable. As I see it, WP:FICT applies before we can judge this list with the standards of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Even if this topic may satisfy WP:FICT once an actual article is written, this list is excessive and is in my eyes nothing more than a trivial dumping ground for "hey, there was a fictional disease in the book I just read, and no-one can delete my addition to this list as it's true." I also had a better look at the linked diseases and the diseases in the category, and I am surprised to report that even those article would have a hard time surviving AfD unharmed, as they are completely in-universe, with no assertion of real-world notability. This reinforces my !vote. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dbiel's point that there is a category for fictional diseases and that there are 45 entries on it is well-taken. Unlike fictional chemical elements and compounds, which are usually mentioned in passing, fictitious diseases can be (a) analogs to real illnesses (b) the bases for a larger plot such as the Andromeda Strain, Outbreak, etc., where the fictional illness is used to describe current medicine and (c) a reference for later medical crises. Mandsford 01:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that, but, surely, if these diseases have such significance, they will have been mentioned in third party sources. This list does a lot of things that a category does not, and is also more accessible to the average reader, but I think it should be trimmed down to only entries mentioned in third party sources, or possibly v(although I prefer the former option) cut down only to diseases deemed notable enough to have their own entries. J Milburn 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with this list, it's riddled with fancruft that should be trimmed. Also I don't like how it's organised (alphabetical by disease name), it should be by the work's title. But you can bet there are for the ones I name in my comment below.--Victor falk 15:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I removed the {{Citations missing}} I had put when casting my vote above. There is no need for citations in this list, those should be available in the disease's article (Rage (fictional virus), Closed Shell Syndrome), or in the article about the work where they play a major role: The White Plague, Snow Crash.--Victor falk 15:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care how this page has been redone, it's still not a notable topic for an encyclopedia, the elements can be merged to respective pages. Dannycali 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive unending compendium seekign to capture every made-up disease ever mentioned in a work of fiction. Implicates WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA. One in 100, maybe one in 1000, made-up diseases warrant encyclopedic coverage and those that warrant it should have articles. Otto4711 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was apparently the original intention, and I fully agree that we cannot have such a list. Please note how I have modified the inclusion criterion: [15]--Victor falk 19:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep with proper documentation, more of these would be notable. btw. if they have an article on wikipedia... aren't they notable? so the not notable argument fails here. the list is strongly organized and delimited. this is also solidly encyclopedic. --Buridan 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even now, adequately documented. Since when are major plot elements in major works not notable? The advantage of a list is that it can be organized in multiple ways. I personally agree that the original article on the work should be sufficient documentation, but i think the present consensus may be to actually cite it in every instance in the table. I think that's a perversion of the generally sound rule of not documenting WP from WP--articles like this are a list and summary of the basic articles. I think each one of them could be documented as important from reviews of the work, if that is thought to be necessary. The collection of this material is unique in extent, and useful--and useful is one ofthe considerations for a list. some of the items are misplaced or erroneous or dont belong--but that's an editing problem. DGG (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Plot elements are notable when they have "received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources" that "describes the real-world aspects of the concept". I'm not sure "since when" this has been part of WP:FICTION, but does the timeframe really matter? We're not in the business of cataloging plot devices; truely notable items will qualify for their own articles, which can be serviced by a category... the rest should be nuked. Notability is not inhereted. /Blaxthos 23:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as really well put together article that successfully links together a common thread in fiction and that will provide readehttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png

Your signature with timestamprs with a comprehensive and organized reference. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~{{sofixit}} I have re-organised it according to media and removed a crufty entry or two. I think it should make clear that in principle this list is perfectly non-objectionable: [16]--Victor falk 02:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD should probably be closed and reopened, or simply closed based on the fact that the article (list) has been drasticly rewritten since the start of this AfD, which in itself requires an entirely new look at the current state of the article in relationship to this AfD. Previous points may or maynot apply. I restored the AfD tag on the article as until this this closed the tag should not be removed Dbiel ^(Talk) 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sry for removing the tag, I forgot about it when copypasting from my sandbox--Victor falk 06:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting might be a smoother solution than closing and opening again? --Victor falk 06:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - No matter how much you've trimmed, the article is still completely void of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, as noted in the AFD rationale. Closing and re-opening (or re-listing the AFD) won't change that fact; the delete comments all deal with those issues directly (and those concerns/objections have not been fixed). This is not, by our own rulse, acceptable content for a serious encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 22:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind about the procedural details. The sources are in each's disease's article (you don't expect List of Oceanian countries to have any sources, do you?) It provides information the category cannot, a short description of each disease, and a thematic grouping. I cannot help but believe that people want to delete because they fear it could be a cruft magnet. And, assuredly, it was designed as such when nominated. Its aim was to include every fictional disease that ever got mentioned in even the most obsure computer game or tv series. That would be unencyclopedic. And yet, it did not have entries for major works such as Outbreak, The Andromeda Strain, or Snow Crash...--victor falk 02:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is clearly not needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - that's your personal opinion of the subject. Others, like writers and readers of fiction, may find the subject informative, entertaining, and useful. Wikipedia has a little of something for everyone. Viva la difference! The Transhumanist 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Firstly, there is a category for the articles contained in the list. Second, fictional diseases may play a huge part in advancing books' plots, one example I can think of off the top of my head is the Descolada virus in the novel Speaker for the Dead. Neranei (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. /Blaxthos 00:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment as it happens, this aticle is not a lot summary--as even the title makes evident. And the link for Not inherited does not mention that term. The true link is WP:NOTINHERITED which is an essay, not policy or guideline. There is no rule prohibiting this sort of article or this content. And. per WP:N, only the general subject must be notable, not the individual items. They just have to be relevant. DGG (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could someone (or closing admin) please check for WP:Civilty issues on this page. We can disagree and remain civil if pleasant just isn't possible. Benjiboi 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Congrats on the re-write, I'll save the frustration of looking at the earlier version. Article seems to assert notability and be well-written as a bonus. Benjiboi 09:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. The article, which was once useful and interesting, has been totally gutted by exclusionists to the point of insignificance. All of Wikipedia will go this way eventually as the Agents of Order enforce their narrow world view on the entire project until it contracts into an internet black hole, mentioned in passing in geek conversations five years from now as an experiment that failed. Captain Infinity 22:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... I agree in part that the list was trimmed a bit too hastily and thoroughly. Regardless of the outcome of the AfD discussion, would it have been too much to ask to migrate entries chopped en masse to the list's associated Talk page? Should the list continue onward, salvaging fitting entries has become a mess of poorly commented diffs. D. Brodale 01:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain, agreeing on this, wouldn't it be better to keep what we have, even as a stub, than to give up altogether. i suspect most of the material will be able to be re-added properly sourced. perhaps you really mean keep and gradually restore. DGG (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Keep per The Transhumanist and Restore per DGG. Captain Infinity 16:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, most diseases currently have articles on them, therefore creating a list of them seems entirely appropriate. Those who wish to delete this list should consider nominating separate articles on fictional diseases for deletion. MaxSem 06:59, 21 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskey Summer of 1947[edit]

hyper-local event with limited (if any) notability. The author wrote that the entire event was largely forgotten until some newspaper clippings were unearthed. Toddstreat1 13:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable for anywhere but the one town in Illinois; completely unreferenced. /Blaxthos 14:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A couple of Googles on "Whiskey Summer" plus Illinois or 1947 all came up dry (if you'll pardon the pun.) Unless someone can come up with a better, well referenced, reason than "made liquor laws stricter in one county" for notability, I see no reason to keep this article. -- Hi Ev 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Dog bit man in '47"--Victor falk 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apprarently not important enough in the history of Olney, Illinois, for the local paper to mention it on the 60th anniversary Mandsford 01:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" The local paper sucks. They are lucky to have a front page filled with local news. I have several more articles to scan and much more infromation to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironladysmom (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. It may be locally important but does not meet notability and even thought the paper is a source, it should have more than just the one. Is there any mention of it in a historical text? --EarthPerson 21:36, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium[edit]

Article was written by organization as an advertisement. There are insufficient independent sources of information available to create more than a stub. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP, no reliable secondary sources. /Blaxthos 14:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The organization is mentioned in passing in an Economist article, but there's not enough information available independent of the subject to write a Start class article or better. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete American spam goes down nicely with a gueuze--Victor falk 17:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice article, nice beer, but notability to come. --Gavin Collins 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads, non-notable organization. Keb25 09:30, 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. Neil ☎ 09:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZZZap! The Bumper Video Comic[edit]

Originally proposed that this article be merged with ZZZap!, but a) the video was already mentioned in that article, and b) I feel that the rest of the text fails WP:N. It is also completely unreferenced. _TheIslander 13:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A merge doesn't need to include all information, and in this case there's way to much detail (which kids failed their stunt in Daisy Dares, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced and non-notable. Article is little more than a list of characters; article completely in-universe. /Blaxthos 14:20, 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. GRBerry 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eat red meat day[edit]

Non-notable, possibly fake holiday Chunky Rice 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sad delete I personally kinda hope this takes off, but so far there's no real indication that it has, or that it will, or that any realable sources have covered it. At present it gets 8 google hits, so apparently even within the blogoshpere it isn't exactly setting the world afire. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I Celebrate this day and know many others who do. 203.220.13.56 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it's a hoax, but there's no evidence of third-party coverage other than blogs, so it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 13:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SOMESTUFFSOMEPEOPLEMADEUPONETIME (and WP:RS, WP:N) ;-) /Blaxthos 14:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOT#MADEUP. Isn't every day "eat red meat day?" --Evb-wiki 14:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: For now, but tag for outside sources. I have heard of this. - Rjd0060 15:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because you celebrate doesn't automatically make it notable. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 15:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Fails notability tests. Although a steak is sounding real good right now. Useight 15:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFT (and WP:BOLLOCKS) appear to apply here.--Michig 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable, and wikipedia is not for things made up one day. When this happens and gets media attention, then we can cover it. bikeable (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax that tastes good and is rich in protein. Cholesterol shmolesterol! Mandsford 01:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This wasn't tagged for notability, is not a hoax as noted above, and therefore should be kept until an opportunity to provide more evidence is given to establish notability.JJJ999 04:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of those google originate with moistimportant.com or wikipedia.org; nothing I've seen so far indicates that this exists beyond the imagination of a fellow named Benjamin Hiatt. Even the official T-shirt looks like an image of a shirt with text superimposed upon it. Mandsford 14:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(comments redacted--DGG)

Strong keep. Ted Nugent and I are both ardent supporters of this holiday. –Historian 1000 20:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- DGG has time to avoid Mandsfords slips in ettiquete, but not to vote... can't bring yourself to vote keep? what gives?JJJ999 06:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable made up holiday. --Itub 07:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, but not notable. V-train 17:11, 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 nomination withdrawn. J Milburn 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99 Ways to Die (song)[edit]

Non notable song. It has appeared on a compilation and a studio album, as well as on a video, but I cannot find any reliable sources that do more than mention it in a track listing. Never released as a single. J Milburn 13:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my nomination withdrawn, as per the the fact it was a Grammy nominee, and cleanup that the article has been given. J Milburn 17:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan 13:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. /Blaxthos 14:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Ours18 03:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge and redirect without deleting the Beevis and Butthead album article.~~ Song is by a notable band and on a notable album, as well as on a second album, and so the information is worth keeping in some context. Also, according to the New York Times the song was nominated for a Grammy Award. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Grammy nominees should have their own articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:04, 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. W.marsh 02:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrum Phosphoricum[edit]

Very short article on a homeopathic remedy of no particular notability. It has no context, and what very little information is provided could be easily recreated if anyone was ever willing to actually spend time to make a decent article out of it. About a two weeks have passed from a proposed deletion, but no significant improvements seem forthcoming. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All homeopathic 'remedies' are essentially vials of pure water which rely on the placebo effect for their 'cures'. There is no difference therefore between one such preparation and any other. Nick mallory 13:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short text containing some unverified statements. NCurse _work 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dilute to infinite potency--Victor falk 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: struck out per later !vote below. --Pak21 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although I personally agree with Nick about the reality of it, that's POV. Stuff that is fairly widely believed to cure a disease is notable, just as other popular "science". In this case, there is sizable minority that take it seriously. The article needs expansion--there are quite a number of homeopathic sources for these. DGG (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not POV, it's science. The article itself says it's diluted to one part in a million. Homeopathic remedies are diluted to such an extent that no molecules of the original 'active substance' remains in them. They are literally just water [17]. Nick mallory 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same as other homeopathic remedies for the simple reason that it has a different label on the bottle and is sold for a different purpose. And that is something that can be verified and included in an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:V. --Itub 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. JJL 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, though, it's just one of hundreds of Homeopathic remedies. There's no particular notability of it, and I doubt that it'll ever be expanded significantly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment But surely there are more allopathic rememdies, many of which are also of limited notability? I see clear encyclopedic value to having them here (er, leaving aside the fact that it's pseudo-scientific hogwash). JJL 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Homeopathic remedies exist and are sold widely in the real world, and a comprehensive encyclopedia should document their existence and alleged uses. The fact that they don't work is not relevant. We can have articles about unicorns, even though they don't exist, right? --Itub 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dilute~~ Diluted keep Itub has a point, and I must admit that I wp:idontlikeit. Notwithstanding my personal bias, there are thorny problems. How can claims of its curative effects fulfill wp:v & wp:rs? It then turns into a wp:soap. I hope this dilutes my keep vote with great potency...--victor falk 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (apparently) notable homeopathic remedy. [18] would seem to be a reasonable source, and the sources listed there possibly even better. In response to comments above, AfD is not the article improvement drive. --Pak21 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep- is clearly notable, agree with reasoning above.JJJ999 06:01, 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. W.marsh 02:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never Gonna Dance Again[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Firstly, WP:V states "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Based on this statement alone, this article should not exist. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have not found any reliable sources that claim that this song is to be released. Therefore, if this article fails both WP:N and WP:V, it automatically fails WP:MUSIC, which it does, as this article doesn't meet this criteria. Also, I remember reading somewhere on wikipedia that the musician is NOT a reliable source. I can't seem to find this anywhere in WP's policies, so if someone knows about this, could they address this? — *H ippi ippi 12:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or redirect to Careless Whisper -- that's the first song I think of when i hear this, anyway. Deltopia 16:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Keisha once stated "Gotta Be You" was going to be a single in an interview (but we got "Follow Me Home"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.174.127 (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty feet have got no rhythm Nor are they encyclopedic. Delete, per above.Mandsford 01:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from WP and now from my head too.JJL 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unconfirmed --SuperHotWiki 14:52, 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 Speedy Delete per discussion below. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan leaders[edit]

Wikipedia is not a personal website for soliciting ideas for your next book. MER-C 12:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Evb-wiki 12:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody wants help coming up with ideas for a book he's writing, which by the sound of it will have Erin Hunter's lawyers all over it in two shakes of an anthropomorphosised cat's tail. Bonus tip to author: the name for a group of cats is a "clowder". Good luck! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was already speedied once. Should have been tagged for speedy again. - Rjd0060 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: User keeps entering the same content on other pages, e.g. The Book of Triumph‎ and The book of triumph Stephenb (Talk) 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Add speedy to my !vote, per Stephenb ↑. This and the others are vandalism.--Evb-wiki 15:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And now Irontail Stephenb (Talk) 15:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a personal blog. Useight 15:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per CSD G11 - It's self-promotion and nothing more than that. Dethme0w 15:26, 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--JForget 00:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 495 (North Carolina)[edit]

The only reference given is a local proposal that has not seen anything on the state or national level. The link states that "Each affected MPO/RPO would have to formally agree...in order for NCDOT to submit the request for a “future” Interstate designation to the Federal Highway Administration in 2006." but it's now 2007, and nothing has happened. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, especially not an outdated one. NE2 12:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it's more than a proposal. /Blaxthos 17:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, someone's non-notable proposal. —Scott5114 ↗ 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well stated reasons put forward by NE2. Edison 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is wrong (it's not proposed) and per NE2. --MPD^{T / C} 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Son 18:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some more official sources can be provided, I say we nix it. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as that List of Proposed Interstate Highways article that we discussed last time. If not then Redirect this to that article. ----DanTD 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of Interstates that are being seriously considered, with designations written into law or appearing on signs. This is a local proposal that got nowhere. --NE2 07:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The official website still maintains it as an active proposal, though. Perhaps it would be better off redirected to List of proposed auxiliary Interstate Highways instead. ----DanTD 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A website of a "regional business leadership group" that doesn't have control over any of the agencies that designate the routes or post signs. --NE2 14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would support a redirect. Why not redirect to Interstate 95 in North Carolina and mention it there? At leas then the information is here. --MPD^{T / C} 05:22, 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 02:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Como West Public School[edit]

Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. Twenty Years 11:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ...and most importantly, wpnot:nfo, "wikipedia is a collection of encyclopedic knowledge, not indiscriminate information".--Victor falk 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a school district page. Nothing in notability says schools must be deleted. There is currently a Wikipedia Schools Project, this should be allowed to be cleaned up per the project.CelticGreen 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CelticGreen. There are several sources asserting the school's existence on the page, but they are not integrated into the article. While that may not be enough to sustain the existence of an article here, at the very least Twenty Years should assume good faith and call for a merge into the local area, as per WP:LOCAL. JRG 05:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:N is met by the Hansard mentions. TerriersFan 02:14, 20 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 it is, it's not notable enough to be kept. VoL†ro/\/Force 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladesville Public School[edit]

Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. Twenty Years 11:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 05:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not much at all in the article. However some web searching shows it's been around since 1878 or 1879, has a pamphlett (Gladesville Public School celebrating 125 years) a book ( Gladesville Public School centenary 1879-1979) and a few news articles about it. Certainly enough to satisfy verifyability from reliable sources and write a good encyclopediac article. Peripitus (Talk) 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt classify the pamphlett as a RS. The book is written by a source from within the school (see here), so that is not a RS. The news articles i found on the college; 1 no relevance - talks about the schools chior performing - which is non-notable, 2 nothing again - the school is getting a new fence, its been used for past electoral events (once again NN), and this - where the headmaster of the school attended the Gladesville RSL Slubs 75th anniversary, carries no notability for the school. Twenty Years 14:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you here. Schools, councils and suburbs are often the only publishers of significant information about themselves, which does not always make the source unreliable, but only reading the document can show if it's a reliable source. The book may be by a local historian then publishing paid for by the school or may be a fluff piece. The school has been around since the 1890s so websearching for news articles doesn't cut the mustard - EBSCOHOST only shows back to 2000 I think. At the end the question to be answered here is "can we write an NPOV reliable, sourced encyc article" and I think the answer about this school is yes - Peripitus (Talk) 00:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can find some news though, Northern District Times Wednesday 1 Sep 2004, p. 18 - Gladesville Public School, one of the state's oldest primary schools, notches up 125 years next Wednesday with a celebration of the past , present and future. + others , Are recorded in the Ryde hunters hill library as part of the district oral history record, had a "peace garden" launched Northern District Times 16 Nov. 1994, p.5 by the state minister.... and all this in about 10 minutes of looking. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing shows that anything about this school would be worthy of an encyclopedic article instead of a yellow page entry. --Victor falk 17:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both the book and pamphlet are published by the school. It is worth a mention in our article on Gladesville but not as a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 01:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 04:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as here, there is usually not information about a primary school to write an article. Is perhaps the age notable though--is it perhaps one of the oldest schools in a wide region or is the building historically important?DGG (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The building...no.. from what I can find the building is not heritage listed or particularly significant. Noted as "one of the state's oldest" primary schools but I can't tell how significant this is. On reflection it probably fails the notability requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, allow for merging any useful content into the article for Gladesville, New South Wales (such as that identified by Peripitus). See Berwick, Victoria and Hamersley, Western Australia for examples of where this has been done elsewhere. Orderinchaos 12:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 22:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a school district page. Nothing in notability says schools must be deleted. There is currently a Wikipedia Schools Project, this should be allowed to be cleaned up per the project.CelticGreen 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep having lived in the area I know this is one of the oldest schools on the northern side of Sydney. I know there are sources in the local libraries which would confirm my suspicions but I simply don't have time at present to get hold of them and reference the article. The school is definitely notable and there is no way this information should be deleted - it should be merged at best to Gladesville, New South Wales as per WP:LOCAL which Twenty Years conveniently fails to recognise. We need to assume good faith more and do some research before deciding every school is not notable. I ask the closing nominator to please end this debate with a merge, not a delete so that more effort can be put into this article in the future. JRG 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention closing moderator: please userfy to me if the result is delete. I wish to merge into the suburb article, because the school is definitely notable there if it isn't in its own article. JRG 03:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to district article. Not notable. Saying the project can clean it up as a reason to keep is not reasonable. They probably have a twenty year backlog of work already. Vegaswikian 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This school is not notable in my opinion. Cleaning it up would probably result in a better treatment of a non notable subject. --Stormbay 20:57, 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. W.marsh 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Joan of Arc School, Brighton[edit]

Article asserts no notability. No agreement at WP:SCH, it fails WP:N, WP:ORG, WP:CORP. Twenty Years 11:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 11:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also fails WP:NOT#NFO and is furthermore eligible for CSD/A7.--Victor falk 17:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Metao 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to a school district page. Nothing in notability says schools must be deleted. There is currently a Wikipedia Schools Project, this should be allowed to be cleaned up per the project.CelticGreen 23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 04:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 22:42, 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. GRBerry 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shotgun poker[edit]

Total vanity article put up by "inventor" of non-existent game, who also removed prod another editor added. Another commercial game called shotgun poker isn't this game. 2005 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanispamcruftisement. MER-C 11:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#MADEUP /Blaxthos 17:27, 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 delete, dictionary definition. —Verrai 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hodge-podge (expression)[edit]

DicDef already covered in Wiktionary at wikt:en:hodge-podge William Avery 11:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Rjd0060 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Evb-wiki 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. jonathan (talk — contribs) 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 17:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above and as nom - wikipedia isn't a dictionary--Cailil ^talk 17:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa Card Game[edit]

Unreferenced vanity article. No evidence game exists. Google searches only turn up this article or copies of it. 2005 11:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no external evidence. Several variations of search terms result in a grim pattern of no hits. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. /Blaxthos 17:32, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melody Yoko[edit]

This article is a biography of a young Japanese-American model. It has no sourcing beyond the personal home page, and largely consists of an image gallery; the only claim of notability is a list of magazines in which she has appeared, several of which are redlinks. This wasn't good enough for me so I speedily deleted it under A7 for not asserting notability. It was recreated in identical shape. I have brought it here for debate and recommend deletion. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Very notable model. 203.220.13.56 13:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]} --Paul A 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this needs better sourcing if it's going to survive. Even if we take her word for it that she was in Woofin' Girl, for example, was it a whole article about her or did she appear way in the back on a page with 8 other models? Sources please! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N. Models are supposed to have pictures in mags, there's nothing to make this one stand out from the rest. ---- WebHamster 14:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unsourced. Probably COI vanity. /Blaxthos 17:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity, non-notable model. Keb25 02:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's really cute. Bobsbasement 11:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CUTE This is a valid Keep Argument, darn it. Bobsbasement 11:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn, promotional. -- Hoary 02:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://vision.ameba.jp/search/user.do?user=melody-yoko
http://www.nail71.com/glamorous/melodyyoko.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsbasement (talk • contribs) 04:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc straker (talk • contribs) 13:37, 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 Keep and it appears that the nomination was withdrawn.--JForget 00:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ome Henk[edit]

This article was nominated AfD by an IP user. No whatsoever reason was given, neither has a deletion debate been started. I don't see why this article should be deleted and intend to remove the AfD tag. P.F.O.S.B. 11:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP user tried to CSD this, which was denied. There's no reason given, but you can't remove the AfD flag until the debate closes. Since you didn't open the debate, I don't think that it would be appropriate for you to non-admin close this. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, I'm new to Wikipedia and still unaware of certain rules. Of course I won't remove the tag in this case, until an admin does so. -- P.F.O.S.B. 14:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you can see on the Dutch Wikipedia[19], he has had five top twenty singles in the Dutch hitparade. His best ranked album reached the top 10.Dutch national institute for pop music, Ome Henk discography. Since we don't take quality but only notability and verifiability as a reason for inclusion, the article should be kept. Fram 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as unjustified/unexplained reasoning for deletion. No assertion of merits of article, keep !vote is for procedural reasons only. /Blaxthos 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dismiss nomination, per Blaxthos. --Victor falk 18:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crimbaps[edit]

Protologism. The only thing interesting about this dictionary definition is that it is a googlewhackblatt (see googlewhack). MER-C 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Rjd0060 15:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as protologism. /Blaxthos 17:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable real food product. Dr.frog 14:04, 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. The Placebo Effect 15:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsource.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously speedily deleted twice for being advertising. This is a Christian online ministry; the article cites sources but was nominated for speedy deletion with the contention that they were all trivial. I have refused the speedy and brought it here with no recommendation from me. Sam Blacketer 10:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument appears to be over the sources, at least two of them appear to be reliable and non-trivial. Because they're niche sources shouldn't negate their reliability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article shows plenty of information with sources. It isn't even a stub in my opinion. Thebestkiano 10:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't let the number of sources fool you. They aren't independent, reliable sources, and in the two or three that are independent and reliable, the coverage is trivial. Notability is not asserted from the sources (and cannot be from these sources), and an organization is not inherently notable because of its association with other notables (cf. an talent agent who works for many well-known people but who has no significant independent press coverage -- that agent does not get a page just because his clients do). This is too much like an ad. --Flex (talk/contribs) 11:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as advert Elmao 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Flex: as it is, it is undistinguishable from spam. If and when multiple, independent, reliable sources can be found, a real article can be written starting afresh. --Goochelaar 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - lacks acceptable reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. /Blaxthos 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent evidence of notability. Corvus cornix 18:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious advertising and unencyclopedic content. Biruitorul 00:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not an advertisement if it is simply explaining the valuable website content. If you note, it has ADVERSE references that put the site in negative light, this shows a npov. Also, there are plenty of articles covering various websites of all different topics. Why allow websites of one topic but not of Christianity? It's not promotion if it's stating facts as well as sources of opposition. User:klrutzel 72.84.208.91 12:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) *** also note that the sources of content on the site (individual broadcasters) have their own articles and that the images point towards internal links.[reply]
- Comment: You've made two of the arguments to avoid: other similar articles exist (if they're so similar, that's probably an argument for their deletion, too, not for keeping this one) and it's valuable, so it belongs (but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion of any resource nor a collection of all useful information). PS, I'm a conservative Christian who appreciates some of the content you host, but that doesn't mean it belongs here or that this is in any way related to the material's religious nature -- it's not. The website simply doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply to COmment I don't see how it's not related to Wikipedias religious section. If someone wants to find out how they can listen to sermons online and find out the viewpoints of different leaders in Christianity, LightSource is the only place where you can go to watch the videos for free. Just as wikipedia has a written explanation for Christianity, LightSource has a spoken explanation. 208.253.81.4 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: It's not related in the sense that if LightSource were Hindu or Atheistic, political or social, it still wouldn't merit an article under WP:WEB. Just because one can watch free video there doesn't mean it belongs here. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for getting your name out there (read: publicity), nor is it a collection of external links, however valuable they may be. Many things are valuable that don't belong here. The criterion you must meet for the article to stay is not to prove your content is valuable but to satisfy the notability guidelines. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment

  1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
         * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[4] except for the following:
               o Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5]
               o Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles     that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

Christianity Today, About.com, DC Internet, and Billboard are all independent, reliable sources that cover the site with a complete article rather than a trivial internet address mentions, directory listings, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betweenworlds (talk • contribs)

Comment: The Christianity Today article has only trivial coverage. The article is about the failure of for-profit Christian websites, and it mentions in passing Lightsource.com as an example of one (among several) that failed. That is enough to prove that "Lightsource.com was extinguished", but not enough to prove that it is notable as a website. The same applies to all the other sources. By your rationale, every CEO of a .Com start-up that the NYTimes ever mentioned would be notable enough for a page, when certainly they are not. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Look at this way: Could you write a meaningful article from the information provided in the links? If not, then just the fact that the subject of the article is mentioned in them doesn't help to establish notability. Every sentence in an article should, ideally, be sourced to a third-party source. Although technically this is a requirement, it isn't enforced, as that would be unwieldy, but if you have to use sources which don't qualify under the reliable sources criteria, then there aren't enough valid sources to keep the article. Corvus cornix 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And advert is an advert. Vegaswikian 02:50, 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 keep by consensus as having sufficient reliable sources and notable content, having been improved significantly. Bearian 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Workaholic[edit]

Completely unreferenced for more than six months. Mikeblas 10:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. There is already an entry, and it's a def which is served best from there. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I don't get it; why move unreferenced material? Does Wictionary not follow WP:V ? -- Mikeblas 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment See meta:Eventualism. I believe there is no harm in following common sense about material we know could be sourced. In fact, why not take the time to source it now, instead of arguing that it's unsourced? (Why are you here?) --Dhartung | Talk 03:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entry on wictionary is small in comparison, but I'm not sure why you call WP:V on this one? [20] [21] Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Because the article is completely unreferenced, and has been for more than six months. The entry makes claims that the two references you provide don't substantiate. -- Mikeblas 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Etymologically speaking, the word is referenced, and that's all that needs to be for the entry in wictionary. How about this one? [22] Yngvarr (t) (c) 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TW & Delete: Yeah. Per above comment. - Rjd0060 15:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate for wikipedia. /Blaxthos 17:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced and I can't see how this page would ever be anything other than a dictionary definition so it is not appropriate for wikipedia (WP:NOT#DICTIONARY)--Cailil ^talk 18:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to work addiction and source. This has been a subject of "pop psychology" for four decades. Workaholic has over 4000 results on Google Scholar and over 1000 results on Google Books (note: for some topics GB results in the tens are significant). There are implications for personal health, for marriages, for children, and even for the employer. There's no reason this can't be a fully sourced article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

work addiction redirects to Workaholic Colonel Warden 21:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed it does. I think switching them makes more sense as the article should be about the "syndrome" and not the "sufferer". --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate notability and sources User:Colonel Warden at work, late on Saturday night :)
Keep, even without the expansion because of the countless interwikis. AfD is not for cleanup, although it helped in this case. ;-) – sgeureka ^t•c 22:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move or redirect to work addiction - clean-up helps a lot, however a workaholic article will remain a dictionary definition. Change redirects to make work addiction an article and workaholic a redirect--Cailil ^talk 23:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article traces the origin of the term as well as describing the condition itself, the psychological compulsion to stay at the workplace even when it is not expected. Mandsford 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since work addiction redirects to this article and the improvement it achieved. Don't you think it already approached the Heymann standard?--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cleanup fixes.--SarekOfVulcan 19:22, 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. The Placebo Effect 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte, North Carolina in popular culture[edit]

Wikipedia is not a collection of unsourced trivia items. MER-C 09:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This needs to be merged with the Charlotte city article. Carter | Talk to me 10:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "In popular culture" is trivia and is not encyclopedic. -- Mikeblas 10:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge into the main article, which generally should be the place for notable cultural references. One example where this works well is the Verona article, which mentions it as the setting for Romeo and Juliet. As far as I can tell, most of the stuff here is pretty trivial though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mere trivia is not encyclopedic. --Evb-wiki 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA. If there is any truely notable content, merge it into Charlotte, North Carolina. /Blaxthos 17:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Charlotte, NC. There are some locations that capture the popular imagination. San Francisco, Paris, Rio, Timbuktu, Tokyo... yes. Charlotte, Sacramento, Portland... no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the Charlotte, North Carolina article and then redirect without deleting. Good, encyclopedic information that should be kept in some context, but it is short enough that a merger could work best in this instance. Additional references are always good too. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN topic, although it can easily be merged anyway. Dannycali 06:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge. Unimportant junk (as MER-C said). --138.88.170.131 16:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:IDONTLIKEIT Secret 01:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge, it just a unprosed, unsourced list, that would make the article worse if merged. All it does is names the films where the city appears in the background, mostly racing movies because of the NASCAR track that is there. Fails WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOR, etc. Secret 01:03, 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 02:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terra Nova Green Party[edit]

Non-notable wing of the Green Party of Canada. Delete GreenJoe 21:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, no assertion of notability. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Wikipedia precedents for notability of political parties. A lack of references is not grounds for deleting an article about an established organization. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a candidate for speedy keep that I can see. Which precedents are you referring to?--chaser - t 23:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a political party at all. Federal or provincial. It's simply a WING or DIVISION of the Green Party of Canada, and they have an article already. GreenJoe 04:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the Green Party of Canada's website, there is no provincial Green Party in Newfoundland. I'm not sure who this group is, but they do not appear to be affiliated with the national Green Party, so they can't claim notability by association. Looking at this groups's website, there's no news since around 2000. I think it's a non-notable dead duck. - Eron ^Talk 00:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You are destroying history. 207.112.70.249 01:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment er, how? - Eron ^Talk 01:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're listed as a political party of NFL/LAB on [23], a website operated by The Thomson Corporation (as the "Green Party of NFL/LAB", but links to the right website). I'd say this one squeaks by. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:59, 9 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, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As confirmed in the site found in the link provided by Royalguard 'The Terra Nova Greens is the Newfoundland and Labrador chapter of the Green Party of Canada'. Nuttah68 09:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pertinant information can be placed into a section of the article about the Green Party of Canada, if it can be reliably sourced and verified. /Blaxthos 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject has been involved in important events at the national or international level (as described in WP:ORG) independent of the main party. The whole article reads like a chronicle of internal friction within the party, which is not notable to the outside world. Cosmo0 20:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The external links look like reliable sources. They would support a merger of the material on the controversy with the rest of the party to the party's article. And that is what I believe we should do. GRBerry 02:50, 20 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War theory[edit]

unpublished synthesis and/or unattributed to reliable sources --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article should have been deleted back in July, apparently the tags on it were removed by the author (something I dislike becuase it lends the impresion of protecting one's articles or POV). IMHO, this is original research and should be removed forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Nuttah68 09:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article appears to be an essay and would need a total re-write if it's kept. War covers the causes of war so this topic seems redundant. --Nick Dowling 09:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No , the article should NOT have been deleted in July. I dislike the implication that it should have been, as that statement is intended to prejudice the decision makers in November. Please specify which sentences are not documented and we can discuss the need and the proposed remedy. I supplied much documentation after the original complaint in July. If every single word of every article on Wikipedia were documented it would look quite cluttered and no one would use it. Every concept in the article is backed by reference, either within the article or in the references at the end. I am concerned that the request for further documentation is really a disguised form of censorship, as the article points out some uncomfortable facts. Does Wikipedia only publish comfortable, popular facts approved by your corporate bosses? That would prove Herman and Chomsky correct (see References in article). Or should I quote the entire volume of Manufacturing Consent here and put everyone to sleep for a year? The only synthesis in this article is the category- War theory- which is not elsewhere available. The information is all documented. I do not believe you can make a good case for a different category for this information. It is not Anti war, or Pro war, or War tactics, it is solely about the motivations to start a war. I think this is an important topic. It cost Germany a lot of money in the forties and is costing the US a lot of money now. Human life has a certain value as well and the decision making process which ends large numbers of lives deserves to be catalogued. Would you be more comfortable with a different title? I am listening for constructive suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Outofthebox (talk • contribs) 10:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

If you're serious about keeping it, I'd suggest turning your citations into in-line citations for clarity purposes. I'd suggest removing the bulleted list and reformatting the article so that it discusses the various opinions for and against war theory, rather than appearing to be your own work. Cover the history of how the theory came about, and what its implications are. JKBrooks85 13:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is the problem - it implies a general theory of all aspects of war If this article is 'solely about the motivations to start a war' then that's Causes of war which redirects to War which contains a large section on this topic. Your material seems to belong there if it is not there already. Colonel Warden 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article name is a misnomer; as written, the article would more appropriately be titled "Special interest groups cause wars". The article is not largely about war theory. It is unencyclopedic in tone and reads as synthesis and original research. Many major concepts in the article are not backed by references. Maralia 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a (possibly quite interesting) original essay. --Goochelaar 17:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, WP:ESSAY. /Blaxthos 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per all above reasons. Re: PROD removal in July, that is perfectly allowable under Deletion Policy, and not wrong in anyway. As far as I can tell, no AFD header was removed, so the author did nothing wrong in that respect. An AFD could have been carried out at that point, but wasn't, for whatever reason. However, that oversight has been corrected now, so let's move on from that point. The rest of the author's defense make clear his POV, and that he made no attempt to keep the article neutral in anyway, as it simply restates his views above. - BillCJ 18:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete A soapbox. I mean, it even has a War_theory#Conclusion: section. What more can I say?--Victor falk 18:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per any of the above (WP:ESSAY/WP:SOAP/WP:OR). Reads like a school essay, not an encyclopedia article. Cosmo0 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Violates Wikipedia's original research policies and NPOV policies. Goodbye. IvoShandor 23:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge - Some of the content deserve being mentioned at Just War. You cannot have this article as it is (see WP:SYNTH). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a place to post personal essays. I'm amazed how long this has stayed up for and how many articles are linked to this one. The author must be really intent on letting people read this. - XX55XX 22:36, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Satyapuram[edit]

This is about a housing society and it is not so notable enough to have an article Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non notable housing development. Nuttah68 09:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably could have speedy'd (little / no context) but since we are here, it is NN. - Rjd0060 15:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rjd0060. /Blaxthos 17:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable one line stub. --Gavin Collins 09:26, 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 04:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sebacean[edit]

This article about a fictional race has lots of plot summary but no sources demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I see that you still don't want to listen to those who are trying to work with you (still tagging pages without looking at them and still sending articles to afd).

Other editors please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidelon. And User:SolidPlaid, I find that you are a good deletionist, but your idea that people should be "encouraged" to improve articles via Afd is still wrong. I also found out that you are now manipulating Chunky rice to improve the article for you (specifically: I want more where that came from). Pat yourself on the back for wasting an admin's time.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as fails WP:FICTION. We are not in the business of cataloging fiction (plot elements, summaries, or otherwise). Zero "real-world context" as mandated by WP:FICTION. Also, I note my extreme distaste for comments by Lenticel; they are neither appropriate nor productive. /Blaxthos 17:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. And those comments are also out of place... what does SolidPlaid have to do with this article or afd? Is User:Lenticel just abusing afd discussions by posting off-topic complaints? Crazysuit 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I'm thinking he's going into the rescue again and you're right I'll address my concerns on his talk page rather than here. (I'm still working on my own overzealousness too). I just want to tell other editors on what is happening. If this Afd was made in another time, without the controversy, I'll side with Gavin myself and vote merge or even a redirect to the Peacekeeper wars. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real world notability. Crazysuit 01:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rray 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Farscape, I guess. It's a likely search term, and the top google hit for "sebacean". PC78 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 23:35, 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 02:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Borfendorf[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unverifiable article, only 4 ghits, one of which is relevant and none of which constitute third party coverage. Don't forget to delete that egregious vanity pic, too. MER-C 07:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete media coverage appears to consist of one radio play and a review on a forum hosted by natioal broadcasters. Nothing like meeting WP:BAND criteria. Nuttah68 09:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, per nominator. /Blaxthos 17:49, 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 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Azrael[edit]

Contested speedy. An article on a non notable band that makes no claim to notability nor is anything offered that meets the requirements of WP:BAND Nuttah68 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN Band with no outside sources. - Rjd0060 15:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as much as I try to avoid using it in AFD discussions, this is pure vanity. /Blaxthos 17:49, 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. The Placebo Effect 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Electron[edit]

Although the school is notable, their publication is not. I already told the creator to put the article on Wikipilipinas Lenticel ^(talk) 07:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because because of the same problem:[reply]

Delete. I agree with Lenticel. Unless of course we find evidence that the paper is doing something unusual that merits notability? Alternativity 09:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable school publications. Nuttah68 09:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. Hut 8.5 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 17:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate non-notable info.--Victor falk 18:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles to Quezon City Science High School. --bluemask ^(talk) 01:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Quezon City Science High School. If this aticle will be merged, just include only as much information as needed. --- 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titopao (talk • contribs)
Delete (and merge info.). JJL 01:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The fact that both The Electron and Ang Banyuhay are student publications that actually garner awards, something unusual in the Philippine context, actually merits the fact that they are notable. Some of the information though is irrelevant, like their open slots. However, there are no sources for their awards (and even if I ask the editor-in-chief, who is a friend of mine, that would be OR). If sources are not found for such, then delete and merge accordingly. --Sky Harbor 11:25, 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 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Agee[edit]

Contested prod. An article on a musician which offers no notability beyond being a member of the band. Nuttah68 07:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article is about a non-notable person, and thus does not belong here RogueNinja_talk 07:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 07:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. /Blaxthos 17:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checked the reference and it does not constitute notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neozoon (talk • contribs) 23:28, 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 keep as passing WP:MUSIC. Bearian 00:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Boo[edit]

An underground artist current working on their first solo release, but that's just a mixtape. 611 Google hits of which 178 are unique. Which shows that underground artists are hard to document within policy. Wolverhampton is not exactly famous as a centre of hip-hop culture, either. Cruftbane 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Cruftbane Carter | Talk to me 07:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. /Blaxthos 17:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article satisfies WP:BAND as described below. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article satisfies WP:Notability, specifically WP:BAND sections 11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network and 12. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Subject needs only satisfy one of these criteria in order to be kept. Google hits are only to be used as a rough indicator in lieu of other notability criteria, and the fact that subject hails from Wolverhampton is irrelevant. Yeanold Viskersenn 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does indeed satisfy WP:BAND. Ridiculous as the music is. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:52, 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 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artemeia[edit]

Non-notable micronation "not recognised by any sovereign nation", formed last year. MER-C 06:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom RogueNinja_talk 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. 119 unique GHits on the name, none of which appear to be about the subject of this article. Nuttah68 10:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a hoax. /Blaxthos 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Oakshade 21:25, 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. W.marsh 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellside Records[edit]

Unnotable label that fails WP:MUSIC. Brewcrewer 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it has some potential. Especially if the founders wikilinks become active by someone starting those articles. Not a whole lot of content, but I see potential. Especially with maybe a logo etc. I'll tag it up for improvement. Carter | Talk to me 10:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. This [24] implies that there should be material to base an article on. However, to really establish notability we need more than a piece in the local paper. As for the founders, I doubt whether any notability beyond the label is likely. Nuttah68 10:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I wrote it. Note criterion number 12: "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network". It qualifies for retention by virtue of the BBC radio broadcast. No further discussion necessary. Ogg 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ogg. Article needs to be expanded to included references that expand on notability. /Blaxthos 17:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For goodness sake, lads, I have added more than enough to justify the retention of this article. You're asking me to sweat blood. I have added some more information. Now let it lie. Ogg 09:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is a stub, but not worse than many other stubs I've seen. The fact that the label still has records in print is Notable, but "The Amazon website lists over 130 titles still in print" is not. Needs to be expanded, how about links, how about descriptions of some of these albums or a list of all of them. Dannygutters 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

In Light of recent updates to the article, I update my reccomendation to Strong keep. It is much richer than it was, good work Ogg. Dannygutters 14:27, 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 keep. W.marsh 02:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Closer[edit]

Unnotable album that fails WP:MUSIC. Brewcrewer 05:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, studio album by a notable band. Article contains enough info to warrant keeping it if you adhere to the 'albums with not much info should be redirected' philosophy (which I don't, as it happens). Finally, numerous excellent sources are linked in the infobox. This passes the relevent notability guidelines with ease. J Milburn 11:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've pointed out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hood (band) why I think the band is notable, and there are WP:RS for this album. [25][26] [27] Bláthnaid 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but please add the cites to the article before closing this AfD. Bearian 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC) I did it myself, so anyone else can close this AfD. Bearian 00:43, 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. DS 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimlico High School, Australia[edit]

Hoax. I have lived in Tasmania all my life and never heard of the school, article is entirely unsourced and contains no external links, google search does not show any relevant hits apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Article creator has four edits total. Chuq (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 06:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Carter | Talk to me 07:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 08:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no school in tasmania with that name - there is in queensland or the uk - Satu Suro 08:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom/Satu. Twenty Years 11:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a hoax. Exchange programs with another school in the same country? And there isn't a "Davenport Shire" in Tasmania, and the White Pages business listing doesn't bring up that name even on a business anywhere in Tasmania.[28] Orderinchaos 11:48, 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. Whispe ring 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hood (band)[edit]

Unnotable band that fails WP:MUSIC. Brewcrewer 05:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist at least in the form of good reviews, as shown on the Outside Closer album page in the infobox. Yeah, the article needs work, but shouldn't be deleted. J Milburn 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has received a fair amount of media attention, and meets WP:MUSIC #1. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] I'll add some sources to the article over the next day or so. Bláthnaid 14:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, again, add the sources. Bearian 00:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous

Anynomous The page is inaccurate as it fails to mention details of which including people or rather facts that have been excluded of which contributed extensively to this bands back catalogue and history in general. Get the facts straight and give credit where credit is due.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girlsnberry[edit]

This appears to be a neologism. Denelson 83 05:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even sports catologs get to make up words (and then get them on Wikipedia). Someguy1221 05:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think due to it's external links, examples of the color in the chart, and informaiton presented it should be given a small chance. WEAK chance. Ref it up, and I agree with the neologism reference. Carter | Talk to me 08:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, that includes companies deciding to invent names for colours. If reliable independent coverage is provided I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: silly neologism 'made up one day in school'. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, delete. Silly as pointed out, but am I the only one who laughed? BPMullins | Talk 16:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually there are scores of silly names for obscure in-between colors and there are institutes that keep track of them for manufacturers and publishers as well as predict which ones will be popular in the next year or so. This, however, does not appear to be one of them. --Dhartung | Talk 19:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 01:46, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VTS Clima Sp z.o.o[edit]

Company that doesn't assert its notability (WP:CORP). Speedy and prod tag removed by creator without comment. PS. The creator is removing AfD template: [35], [36]... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 05:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of assertion of notability. Someguy1221 05:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, per nom. Visor 06:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 09:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CORP. --Gavin Collins 09:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company. Keb25 09:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even given that the owners and authors may not be native speakers of English, why, why, dear God why would a manufacturer . . . of Air Handling Units, Fan Coil Units and climate controls be compelled to describe itself as a solution provider? This might be a brick and mortar business, but it does not sound like it manufactures consumer products sold under its own brand. No notability shown per WP:CORP. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:51, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Society of the Perfect Right Triangle[edit]

Wikipedia is not for ideas dreamed up in school one day - i.e. violates WP:OR. Anarchia 04:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research, no real sources. --Oxymoron⁸³ 05:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made up while doing homework one day. Someguy1221 05:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the article: "founded in 2007 after series of hours spent studying trigonometry by a small group of students in La Jolla, Calfornia". Why on earth wasn't this speedied? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Cosmo0 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a case of students getting "high, pot in use" Mandsford 02:02, 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. About the title protection, I remind you all you can ask speedy deletion per CSD G4 in case someone recreates this material (obviously this being valid only until the album is officially announced). --Angelo 20:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game Time (The Game album)[edit]

This is supposedly the next album from rapper The Game. This is the third article I've come across claiming to be the next album. I'm requesting speedy deletion as another rumoured album was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harlem Taylor. This was declined speedy simply because the article title is different. Spellcast 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "He has not confirmed all of the tracks, but he is about to leak some of his confirmed tracks on his Myspace." The article can wait until at least then. Someguy1221 05:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no sources in the article.--Tasc0 20:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commet: this also should be protected for some time. I'm guessing a lot of anonymous users may want to create the article just because they "saw it" somewhere.--Tasc0 20:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – crystals in effect. tomasz. 23:25, 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. Eluchil404 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Adolini[edit]

Delete article on character without sufficient notability to warrant an article and without enough history to fill an article. Offhand, I see no material worth merging into Predator 2, but would not oppose such a merge either. Doczilla 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Doczilla 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Jbeach ^sup 20:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't seem to state that this person is an actual character, as much as imply that it's all backstory. Plot points don't get their own articles. — Music Maker 5376 02:37, 21 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 Code Lyoko.

Since this was a relatively contentious discussion, I'll give some closing notes. While there were passionate arguments made in favor of keeping the articles, a number of the keep rationales were not firmly based in policy, and those that were failed to gain a consensus that they address notability concerns expressed by those arguing for deletion/merger.

All articles have been redirected to preserve history for merger. --Haemo 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Code Lyoko characters[edit]

Ulrich Stern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Yumi Ishiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aelita (Code Lyoko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremie Belpois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Odd Della Robbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franz Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elisabeth Delmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Dunbar (Code Lyoko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jim Moralés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Xana (Code Lyoko) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I doubt these characters are notable enough for their own articles, especially Franz Hopper, Elisabeth Delmas, and Jim Morales, as they appear to be more side characters. The articles also have no sources. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, offhand, I can't think of any specific sources aside from primary ones, at least not for them specifically. The primary list can be expanded sufficiently to cover them. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the article on the show as plausible search terms. No opinion on the merge-worthiness of the content. -- saberwyn 04:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent character list if the info improves the list. The articles have been unsourced for a long time and none can be found at present, which shows no notability has been established. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fiction is self referencing. You need only name the series. Check out Marvel comic characters for examples - perfectblue 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main character list. As stated above, there are not enough sources, and the main character list can be expanded. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 12:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep French show that is shown in the U.S. on Cartoon Network (new episodes currently being aired weekly). There is sufficient precedent for this. JJL 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the characters are insufficiently notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User appears to be unaware of the franchise. - perfectblue 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent character list (not main article). —Quasirandom 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. Whoever is doing this is a complete ~~asshole~~ fool with no appreckiation for the Code Lyoko fanbase at all! The characters are essential to the show, as are the very episodes that comprise it. Angie Y. 16:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for yet another insult, Angie. These articles will most likely get merged, because there are no sources. Unless of course you can find some... Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 16:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The series is clearly named as being Code Lyoko, this is THE source. - perfectblue 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now you changed the wording. ~~Isn't that against some policy? I'm not sure..~~ Maybe it's not, but I still feel that you're not supposed to do that. People might use diffs and stuff, so it really doesn't make a diff (get it?). Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same way. Comments like that should be struckthrough so that the context of everyone else's comments makes sense. Seraphim ^Whipp 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the characters are essential to the show doesn't mean they need their own articles. Did you read my nomination? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lead characters are notable within the context of the show. What more do you want, a mention in the UN? - perfectblue 17:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]
But how to a whole world are the characters notable? Homer Simpson has his own article because he is a major character to the whole world, not just the show. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These are relevant and well done articles that deserve far more than to be deleted or merged, especially by individuals with no relevant knowledge of the series. 76.28.138.83 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think these articles are necessary and important to the code lyoko community of articles. However I also believe that characters with no part that involves lyoko itself should be merged with the minor list. asd for the rest they should stay the same. Also whoever is doing this is a complete asshole— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.78.214 (talk • contribs) _{(Suspected vote stacking by Angie. Y)}
Agreed. Similar wording, both want to keep. Angie really wants to keep these. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 13:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, though not necessarily all into the same place. If it won't all fit, merge Jeremie, Odd, Ulrich, Yumi, and Aelita into a new list article (Lyoko Warriors or Main characters of Code Lyoko or whatnot; but only if they don't fit onto the parent character article). My main concern with these articles is the sourcing issues; the prose in most of them is good, though, so the merge can probably be a simple c&p job of each article's key points without major revisions to the text. You Can 't See Me! 17:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. If there is a Doctor Abel (who is a minor character in the Tekken series) article, with no requests for deletion, then these characters should stay, too. There is no reason to delete these articles, since they are very well done, and they are essential to the show. JunKazamaFan 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
above stricken as user changed opinion to Merge diff and diff --Jack Merridew 11:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good reason to keep these articles. I am going to nominate that article for deletion. Seraphim ^Whipp 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All right. Thanks for telling me this. My decision is still merge. JunKazamaFan 10:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to WikiCodeLyoko --Victor falk 19:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No sources or real world info available. The Prince of Darkness 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above to the parent list. Eusebeus 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list of characters. These are unsourced, non-notability-establishing and were created without regard to guidelines. Text should be pared-down on the way. Interested editors are free to transwiki - from history if they don't act now. --Jack Merridew 11:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They do not show the potential to satisfy WP:FICT and WP:WAF. TTN 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The nominator appear to be completely unaware of the show. Most of the characters are critical lead cast members of a show that has been distributed on a dozen TV networks in a dozen countries and which has gone several sessions. They clearly pass notability based on their position in the show alone, while the show clearly passes notability on viewers alone. fiction is self referencing, a characters notability within it can be gained purely on a script basis. If they appear in as a lead 100 episodes (for example), then they clearly have notability and you don't need some peer reviewed media publication to say that they are the lead. If readers don't feel that fiction guidelines have been met, then it is their duty as editors to EXPAND them to bring them up to code. Users who simply delete everything that isn't quite good enough just leave themselves open to speculation that they are committing WP:Point violations. - perfectblue 16:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 160 countries and climbing. Angie Y. 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think your vote (perfectblue) comes across a little like an indirect attack at the nominator. JetLover is a great editor and would not commit a WP:POINT violation. Also a majority of people happen to agree with the deletion - does that mean we are all voting just to make some sort of point? We're all trying to make wikipedia better. WP:DEL#REASON states: "Reasons for deletion include … subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline" and these articles have no proof of notability. WP:V says: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". These articles have no sources and none can be found. Also, notability is not automatically inherited. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not questioning the editor, I am questioning the AFD. If you read my original comment you will clearly see that I am actually referring to the action of deleting something for failing to meet WP:V as being a point violation. Thus, the point violation is failing follow procedures for improving a page and skipping ahead to the last page. All non-critical violations should be tagged for improvement first. - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are also these things to consider. WP:FICT says: "Topics within a fictional universe are notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." So your claim that because it's fiction it's self-referential, doesn't really hold up. WP:WAF states: "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world". These are written from an in-universe perspective with no sources. Seraphim ^Whipp 17:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tagging offense, not an AFD offcence. What's stopping you from making the necessary changes? - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a participant in a deletion discussion. I make a decision about whether this article should be kept/merge/deleted/transwikied/whatever. Editing these articles is not a requirement to being a part of this dicussion. Seraphim ^Whipp 19:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectblue, I can't help but feel offended at some of your comments (like "What do you want, a mention in the UN?") Please try to be more civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JetLover (talk • contribs)
Response: Seriously, what is a notable secondary source for a children's cartoon? Unless it is particularly controversial or is the topic of a big craze the most that you can really expect are reviews in TV guides and fan sites. The primary criteria in this case should be distribution. perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about citing episodes and the Code Lyoko website? Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a primary source, not a secondary source, and a lack of primary sources isn't really a deletion issue for non-contentious fiction. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep How can you cite sources for a T.V show? This whole discussion is a waste of time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.82.203 (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was the above user's only edit. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uh... It's policy to cite sources for everything on Wikipedia, including television shows. And some articles on television characters/episodes, have done just that. You Can 't See Me! 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's policy to cite third party sources. There is no need to cite a self referencing source. For example "Bob is a builder from the fictional cartoon series Bob the Builder. He builds things", this requires no citations as it is self referencing to the cartoon Bob the builder. - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the person nominating these articles for deletion has no knowledge of Code Lyoko. Like TTN and all the other Cabalists, he is an entertainment hater with no regard for the rights and freedoms of proud editors. Angie Y. 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angie, I am not an entertainment hater, hell, I'm an amateur comedian. I am merley suggesting the articles are not needed and without sources. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm agreeing with Angie Y. . Why do people care about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia? There's no harm done by letting them stay. Also, the ~~Second~~ First Amendment says that we can write whatever we want as long as it's the truth and well-written. JunKazamaFan 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is by far the worst argument ever. Of course people care what articles are and are not on Wikipedia. That is the main point of Wikipedia from the editor's (not the readers') point of view: to make Wikipedia a quality product by adding what is necessary and removing what is not. Additionally, you can't insult someone's very being by telling to "get a life" and then brush it off as a joke by saying "No offense." Offense will be taken regardless of those two meaningless words; that constitutes a personal attack. In any case, I've never heard anybody refer to the Wikipedia Cabal in a serious manner before. Angie, you are aware that the Cabal does not exist, right? It's just an excuse that people use when they disagree with overwhelming consensus. I don't think it applies here, because consensus is not overwhelming, but regardless, there is no cabal. You Can 't See Me! 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Why do people care about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia?". We are an encyclopedia. If we wanted an encyclopedia made of crap, we'd just let any old article be created and we wouldn't even bother with a deletion process. If you want a wiki where those rules apply then make your own. There are certain policies and guidelines at wikipedia. "Whoever cares about what articles are and aren't on Wikipedia should get a life" You have just essentially insulted everyone who works hard here... As for the second ammendment comment, Angie made the same comment ages ago... Seraphim ^Whipp 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay. I went too far. I apologize. I'm really sorry. So what if Angie said that before? I agree with it. These articles are not crap. They are, in my opinion, well done. JunKazamaFan 22:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just found that particular argument and lexical choice familiar. Seraphim ^Whipp 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Again, I apologize. JunKazamaFan 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm there's no need to apologise for it... I was actually just caught in an edit conflict where I was trying to add "Now that you've pointed it out, I guess it does seem irrelevant." Seraphim ^Whipp 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was apologizing for my "get a life" comment, which I found to be mean. I know. I still don't understand everything about Wikipedia, so I guess I am of little to no use to this argument. JunKazamaFan 22:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a sockpuppetry case involving this AFD. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'm changing my opinion. Merge it. It'll work out better and look better, in my opinion. JunKazamaFan 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — An American, right? The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution? That 's the one the gun fans argue gives them the right to keep an Assault rifle on their nightstand. Perchance you meant the First — which says nothing about your writing having to be the truth or well-written — or about you being free to post unencyclopaedic content here. --Jack Merridew 08:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nb: diff --Jack Merridew 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
and my clarification of the situation. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I knew that, but I guess I was too busy to fix it. I can't believe I made such a stupid mistake! Yes, I did mean the first. I'm sorry. I'm new to Wikipedia, so some things confused me and I was not informed of some things. Basically, I was naive. So, again, I vote to merge. If I have not addressed this enough, I'm sorry for my offensive comments. JunKazamaFan 10:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either Code Lyoko or List of primary characters in Code Lyoko. I think these various character articles have a lot of good content, but that they also have a lot of details that might be more appropriate for a Code Lyoko/animation-centered website. I tend to think that merging the most pertinent information into Code Lyoko would be the best chance to save this content, because there is always the chance that the List of primary characters in Code Lyoko could be nominated for deletion in the future due to its lack of external sources and concerns about notability. --Kyoko 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Googling it, there is a Code Lyoko wiki. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 23:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge. Merge to a parent list. Half of these characters are minor characters. A page dedicated to them seems superfluous. However, the pages seem to have enough content to remain as seperate pages (though quality and citations are lacking). Wolface 04:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; add citations if needed Half? Jim and Elisabeth, perhaps, but the others are quite major. I haven't seen much reason for deletion beyond "Code Lyoko isn't as popular as the Simpsons." The articles are decently written, and I see no cause for confusion. Wiki is not paper.12.160.93.139 01:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was the above user's only edit. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see the arguments presented, please refer to all of the comments I have made about deletion. I assure you that there are plenty of reasons, none of which include, "not as popular as The Simpsons". Seraphim ^Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the major characters (Yumi, Ulrich, Jeremie, Odd, Aelita and Xana), and Merge the other characters into a single 'Minor Characters' page (assuming the file size doesn't get too big becuase of this). Nisa Tunesque 09:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are about consensus, not !votes. Please give a reason for your choice. Seraphim ^Whipp 11:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These articles are about characters in a TV show, most TV shows do not have their own articles. AF US CO 01:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I may also be voting delete, I must point out that this is flawed reasoning. Almost all TV shows have articles, an many therein have character sub-articles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but these articles usually have sources (keyword: sources). And as stated above, there are very little sources for the CL characters, thus maing them non-notable for their own article. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Code Lyoko was renewed 3 times to run for a total of 4 seasons (a total of 90 episodes); greater than most syndicated animations. It broadcast internationally across several different countries and in several different lanugages, and was carried by unaffiliated television networks (not just one network broadcasting world wide), AND (this is an important fact) it was IMPORTED into the US rather than exported, which is rare for European cartoons. Therefore Code Lyoko is clearly notable purely on vieweing figures and broadcasts alone. Making it's characters also notable.
As for secondary sources, what kind of sources can you seriously expect for a childrens cartoon? Unless it is particularly controversial the most that you will usually get are fan site and reviews in TV guides. Seriously folks, a cartoon has to stir up quite a hullabaloo to get any more than this, regardless of it's notability. For example, most Disney cartoons never get coverage outside of TV guides, fan sites and Disney's own publications unless they hit a raw never and attract haters (most of whom would never pass WP:RS) who accuse them of promoting consumerism or sex or something silly like that. - perfectblue 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the show is notable doesn't mean its characters are. Notability isn't inhereted. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like Perfectblue to stop assuming so much bad faith with me, I am not a troll and I do not intend to be. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not presuming anything. Please stick to the issue at hand, making personal comments or accusations is not good form. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable per WP:FICT. Google search reveals sufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, the characters seem to be sufficiently notable within the work to allow for spin-off articles due to concerns around the parent article's length. Dreadstar † 00:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's not how sources are found. G-hits for the parent show is not what counts as references for the character articles. We needs specific references for the specific character's production/maybe commentary on style i.e how it's drawn/a source which could discuss why the voice actors were chosen. We need sources which discuss real world information about the character. For example, if we were to discuss the Mona Lisa, we would discuss the style used for the painting, the artist's choice of colour etc. We wouldn't describe what the painting looks like and that's what these articles are like. Seraphim ^Whipp 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed that issue in the second part of my comment. First part established notability of the overall subject, the second addressd the issue surrounding the individual characters in this work of fiction, per WP:FICT#Dealing_with_fiction (e.g. in reading through the pages returned by google on the parent subject, the characters are talked about in detail and seem to be individually notable. Dreadstar † 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search such as this is what you would do to prove individual notability. I'm sorry to say, the results are less than spectacular for the one character, and are not likely to be for any others. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is clearly established by the number of seasons and the breadth of distribution. If this were a non-notable series then it wouldn't have gone 4 seasons on international release. - perfectblue 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did that type of search too and came up with the same less-than-stellar results. While Google searches are very helpful in establishing notability, they aren't the last word in the establishment of notability or keeping articles. Truthfully, I'm on the fence with this, but I think they should be kept. Merging them into the parent article isn't feasible, but perhaps as mentioned above, they could be merged into a single character listing. Either way, we should keep the character info - and I don't have a problem with keeping separate ones. Dreadstar † 01:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true, but at the same time, this isn't the sort of programme that's going to be studied and analysed and it's unlikely that there are any books available that chronicle production details and other real world info either. Seraphim ^Whipp 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They might be more popular in France than you think...;) Dreadstar † 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe. Touché! Seraphim ^Whipp 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastique, Seraphim! Well done, touché indeed!! lol! Dreadstar † 01:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to prove that, not wink. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short note: this would more than likely be the only source of helpful out-of-universe content. However, having skimmed through through it, I wouldn't call it very helpful in that regard. The "Part 2" coming up might be more help, but that's not an issue so long as its in production. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no winking then. Here's a start: [37], [38] Dreadstar † 01:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we can't reference ourselves, I'm just giving an example that in the French Wikipedia, the characters do have their own ariticles...they have AfD too...but I'm not sure how they differ. I'm going to check with our French speaking colleagues to see if they are able to find some good sources for these. Dreadstar † 01:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though a fan-site might work in some respects, another Wiki wouldn't for the saem reasons ours can't source themselves. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's basically what I was referring to..it's the French language Wikipedia, our sister project - so we can't self reference per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Dreadstar † 01:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we go by google results, there's a substantial difference depending on which character is chosen, for instance, a search on Aelita Lyoko returns a far greater number of results than does the above such as this. And s search through the French Google for Aelita "code lyoko" has a sold number of hits. I haven't yet evaluated any of these sources, but it shows a marked difference between characters. Dreadstar † 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying that with Ulrich or Yumi will likely net you the highest amount of results. None too helpful, but higher nonetheless. Most of the hits on any search come up with forums or youtube videos. A French search may net better results. It's hard to tell validity through pagenames, but they at least seem a bit less trivial. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for anyone interested in finding sources, here's an example of what is apparently acceptable sourcing for a fictional character article that seems similar to the ones being discussed here: Squall Leonhart, this is from the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)# note-2, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII#Squall. I've been looking, but it's late and I'm tired. Will look more tomorrow. Dreadstar † 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The series is clearly notable, and the characters are clearly notable within the series, so why aren't they being suggested for merging instead. If these characters truly aren't notable enough for individual mentions, shouldn't the information that they contain at least be retained in a single character page.
Admin, if you're out there and do decide that these characters aren't up to individual pages, please merge them as the other references to them on the multi-character pages are working on the basis that a fuller description exists elsewhere and so need to be expanded. - perfectblue 17:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most people have already suggested merging. Please don't jump to conclusions. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that there are also current AfDs for the related pages Factory (Code Lyoko) and Kadic Junior High School. JJL 17:47, 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 speedy delete. A single-A team might warrant an article, so this is non-prejudicial. As it stood, the article was not worth keeping. —Verrai 03:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syosset Brew Crew[edit]

The article seems to be about an subject that fails to meet Wikipedia's Notability Guideline. A quick Google search turns up MySpace pages and clones of the Wikipedia article. NatureBoyMD 03:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 (club). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 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 by WP:SNOW as failing WP:N. Bearian 00:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xtreme Backyard Wrestling (XBW)[edit]

DeleteDefunct backyard wrestling fed. 1k ghits, which seem to be for other feds. Had public access show for about 10 months. No evidence of independent coverage, only ref is an angelfire page. Fails WP:N. Horrorshowj 03:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was something on public access television, and has the distinctive flavor of something made up in school one day. No other coverage, and the emcee promotes his myspace page. Not notable in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Horrorshowj 03:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, backyard feds are not notable. Nikki311 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:Notable; public access television doesn't lend notability. Accounting4Taste 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN wrestling organization, the general consensus is that backyard wrestling feds are not notable (the only one i've seen that hasn't been deleted is the one that was created by the Hardy Boyz when they were younger). TJ Spyke 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 06:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the arguments presented pretty well sum up how the community, including myself feels about it. ADMIN, please close discussion. Carter | Talk to me 08:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete backyard wrestling might be fun, but it is (by definition) not something that gets covered in an encyclopedia. Hell, even actual wrestling magazines don't cover it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Darrenhusted 12:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all backyard wrestling feds murderously fail WP:N. The Hybrid T/C 13:52, 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; redirect allowed. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Burkhardt[edit]

Non-notable. No significant coverage in reliable sources Just citied from another site local TV presonality NYYankee2684 03:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject does not have any substantive coverage in reliable sources. This subject has also not been the subject of any published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyvio. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Speedy - I've removed the copyvio stuff, and am working on the article. Not sure if there is enough to qualify it, will have an opinion later. CitiCat^♫ 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my mind, but I still stand by the delete for now. =^^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No argument with deleting. Maybe revisit topic in a couple of years. CitiCat^♫ 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to be any notability regardless for this well-liked but rookie broadcaster. --Dhartung | Talk 08:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have Redirected to List of New York Mets broadcasters#Current. If delete is still warranted, suggest restoring the redirect after deletion. CitiCat^♫ 13:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In its current state, yeah, this is warranted. Shall we close the AFD as redirected? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:13, 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. Jbeach56 04:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla Herred[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non notable RogueNinja_talk 07:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Bearian 00:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, no independent sources (or any for that matter). Mike6271 02:36, 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, default to keep. Neil ☎ 09:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Don's Toys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

~~I did not speedy this due to the author and how they are not a new editor.~~ (Wouldn't pass speedy anyway, due to assertion of notability) I feel this fails wikipedia criteria for articles as a google search fails to get any other news coverage and although it does provide who the "celebrity clients" are, there are no refs to back that claim other than one article. Phgao 02:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'. Read the article. It has news coverage, it has the celebrity clientele listed. I don't believe this. It goes and I go. It's that simple. PMDrive1061 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I quit. I've blanked the page. PMDrive1061 02:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such a shame that your last act must be one of vandalism :( ---- WebHamster 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant for this to happen. Here is what I wrote to the editor:

Yes I realise you are angry, and I too have read your "article" on your previous Wikipedia experience, but that is why I send it to AfD to get the views of other editors. Something that is notable for me in my area, does not entail it has worldwide notability, or I may think something is notable, but the overwhelming majority may not think that. But you are free to offer your views on the AfD page. Thanks! Phgao 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(didn't get to send this as retired tag was up) Alright, I hate to see a good editor go, but it is wise not to use Wikipedia to make a point and leave, however it is entirely your own decision. Phgao 02:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems notable to me. The list of celebrity clients, and the fact that "Uncle Don" was made the caretaker of Sinatra's Lionel train collection, are both notable to me. I reverted the page blanking, and would like to see this AfD go forward, no matter what the outcome. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per below discussion that is not notable enough for the article to stay, re Iridescent's arguments etc. Phgao 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has the makings of notability and there is already one independent non-trivial source, I'm sure there are others. I unblanked the "spitting out of the dummy" page deletion/vandalism. ---- WebHamster 02:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking you are sure is differnt from being sure; after searching by me and other parties no other sources could be found. Phgao 13:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WebHamster 203.220.106.95 06:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While one source is fine, and I never like to rely on Google for notability claims as it can be misleading; [39] has 4 hits and after broadening my news search I still can't find any more articles. Phgao 03:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeated your search with the apostrophe taken out and it popped up a couple of others, this one, though arguably not WP:RS does refer directly to the celebrity list. ---- WebHamster 03:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that just refers to the same article cited. Phgao 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is patently impossible to constantly come up with new content for this site. So, one spends time here after awhile playing whack-a-mole with vandals and trying to improve other articles. I recalled seeing this in the PE; I used to know Don Du Bose who told me himself that he was in charge of Sinatra's trains. I'm sorry that there's no online reference to that fact. I have never knowingly inserted fals information to this site, why would I do so now? So, I thought, why not an article? I can link it to the Riverside County category since I admit that no one would otherwise come seeking the subject. I knew that going in. That AfD header was on the article before I could even add the second external link. Frankly, if it stays, fine. I hope it will be of use. - PMDrive1061 03:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as Wikipedia has a policy of quickly deleting anything if it fails the guidelines to prevent the author from doing more work on it. And that is why I AfDed it. I'm not saying you are giving "false" info. Phgao 03:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment to PMDrive1061: Bringing an article to AFD doesn't imply that it will be deleted right away, or that it's a condemnation of the author. AFD is a place to debate the merits of an article. Sometimes it's possible to improve an article while it's at AFD so it will become a better article, with more notability. As well, remember that no individual editor owns an article at Wikipedia -- we're a community project. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Comment: Just read the news article, and yes it does state "Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley, Neil Diamond and Red Skelton poked around in Uncle Don's Toys when locals were "villagers" in this famed winter resort." But I still fail to see how a shop a celebrity visited can be used to back a notability claim when there are not further news coverage available. Phgao 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has notability, but just so - mostly colloquial. Covered in a paper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A side note, boo to PMDrive1061 for the dramaqueenery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I don't like to leave things unfinished, may I point out that I am neither a drama queen nor a vandal. Thanks so much for the insults. I blanked the page since I was the only one to have made any edits to it, which is perfectly acceptable as I understand the rules. If it stays, fine. If it goes, fine. I'm not voting one way or another on this. --PMDrive1061 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think other editors are seriously calling you a vandal, and as such to take them as insults is going too far, but what you did is imo unacceptable (making a WP:POINT) and would not be tolerated in real life unless you were a kid. Discussion is always the best alternative and can lead to an amicable solution, whereas having a fit is unwise. Phgao 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. However, the big problem isn't communication but the lack of face-to-face contact. We don't communicate in real time. So, misunderstandings happen with a lot more frequency here than in real life. I blew up. I admit it. It certainly isn't because of my age; I'm going to be a grandfather in a couple of months. It's the lack of personal, real-time contact which can lead to these sorts of issues. So, in all fairness (and to get this discussion back on track), I maintain a no vote on this as author. --PMDrive1061 06:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletions. —Chris 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have project tagged the article to generate interest and listed the AfD in places, this article seems interesting, but I have to stand with Dennis on this one, and leaving sarcastic "gee, thanks" notes on Userpages is poor form, pmd1061. Anyone who's been here any length of time will eventually have an article come up for AfD, I did my first week and saw an opportunity to tighten up my article because of the points being raised. Wikipedia is not a take-my-ball-and-go-home-then type of place. Chris 06:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of others, Chris refers to this Phgao 06:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was meant to be lightly sarcastic, but the "kick in the butt" comment related to my seeing how foolish I was acting. After rereading it, I see why it was misconstrued. No major jab intended. --PMDrive1061 07:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't very civil either, but you have elaborated there. Phgao 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recognize that PMDrive1061 is upset but WP:EFFORT is not a valid argument against deletion. The only question here is notability and I'm struggling to see it. The primary claim seems to be that celebrities visited, but notability is not inherited. It's basically a textbook example of WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it fails WP:CORP. Not a notable place, either. -- Mikeblas 10:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP as it has no particular claim to notability as a store. The "celebrity" argument is misleading; any shop near a celebrity's house is likely to have a celebrity clientele. Unless the store provided something relevant to the celebrity's career (Elvis's guitar shop, say), there's no reason for notability to be inherited. (If they provided toys to someone famous for using toys, there'd be a case for notability.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For example, just off the top of my head, say, toy trains to Frank Sinatra? ---- WebHamster 15:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Sinatra was famous for his toy trains, yes - unfortunately, he isn't. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were famous enough to make the Chicago-Sun Times. Maybe that's not famous enough for WP though eh? ---- WebHamster 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did the trains affect Frank's career? I don't think they did; they might have given Frank great personal satisfaction, but didn't teach him to sing or write music or dance or act. -- Mikeblas 15:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you say just off the top of my head when we all know it was part of the article and you did not make it up, wouldn't it be better to offer more transparency and just say that was what the article says? Phgao 15:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irony and/or sarcasm would fit the bill wouldn't you say? ---- WebHamster 16:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed.... it was late at night; the irony meter wasn't working ;) Phgao 05:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: keep per RepublicanJacobite. 203.221.238.232 00:00, 21 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, no sources can be found, thus no article. Jbeach ^sup 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pike and Musket Society[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds interesting but nothing is verifiable. Nyttend 15:15, 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 by consensus as notable fictional characters. Not my thing, but who knows? Bearian 00:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravediggers[edit]

While I am a fan of Hamlet, unless this article can be expanded to include more references to how the gravediggers lighten the play and the effect they have with expert commentary, this page should probably redirect to hamlet. Phgao 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I've yet to hear a joke by Shakespeare that's actually funny. And their presence in the play is only intended to give the audience a relief from all the grief that's otherwise going on. Almost non-notable, except it's the Bard. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 02:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I just started this page a few minutes ago. If people still find it completely unnecessary after I've done a bit more work on it, then I'll redirect it to the Hamlet page for sure. Tleighw 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tleighw (talk • contribs)

I'm gonna say Keep. Looking around on the MLA Bibliography, I found two scholarly articles which are primarily about the gravediggers:

Jenkins, Harold: "How Many Grave-diggers in Hamlet?" Modern Language Review, (51), 1956, 562-565. (1956)
Bennett, William E.: "The Gravediggers' Scene: A Unifying Thread in Hamlet" The Upstart Crow, (5), 1984 Fall, 160-165. (1984)

There's also endless interpretation of the characters within broader studies of Hamlet; see [40], [41], etc. Really, Hamlet's one of the most exhaustively analyzed stories in history, so even (seemingly) minor characters should deserve a place in Wikipedia. Zagalejo^^^ 03:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rodhullandemu seems to be arguing "It's not funny/I don't get it". In a technical sense they are minor characters but the scene is one of the most significant in Western literature and the choice to make this a macabre comic interlude is dramatically interesting enough that it has received significant analysis. As is the article is barely a plot summary and some unreferenced interpretations but it is definitely expandable. --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they are not notable characters. Compare and contrast with Rosencrantz & Guildenstern whose notability is derived from adaptations outside of the play's context. I have already merged the text with Gravediggers in literature, where I think the content of this stub should be laid to rest.--Gavin Collins 09:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Characters in possibly the most famous play in human history. There's are plenty of sources discussing these characters, at least in published books of literary criticism [42] rather than myspace. The arguments for deletion amount to 'it's not very good yet' which is hardly surprising given the speed at which it was brought to AfD and 'I don't think Shakespeare's funny', a position whose merits are obvious. Voltaire would have favoured deletion though, he called the whole play 'a vulgar and barbarous drama, which would not be tolerated by the vilest populace of France, or Italy' Nick mallory 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hamlet must be among the most discussed pieces of literature and sources will exist to expand this stub. The article's creator and others should be allowed at least a few months to source them, rather than AfDing the article the day it was created. It's hard to see how the "delete the article before the ink's dry" approach helps in building the encyclopedia. If there's still no sources after it's been around a year, say, then might be the time to consider whether it might be better merged somewhere else. Espresso Addict 13:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo above. Rray 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most notable play in the world, minor characters: notable article. Plus writer should be given more time to include sources which others have suggested do indeed exist. Ca woodcock 23:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information into Hamlet. While interesting, and part of a famous play, the characters/scene are not independently notable, nor is there a reason to fork this from the main play article. Honestly, there isn't much content here anyway, so if there's not enough to merge it should simply be Deleted. Kesh 00:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Based on comments below, I am revising my vote to Keep provided someone expands the article with proper citations. -- Kesh 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the characters/scene are not independently notable Based on what criteria, if I may ask? Zagalejo^^^ 01:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are references above indicating that those characters are specifically notable, so asking for an explanation of why they're not notable is a perfectly legitimate question here. Rray 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are works written about the characters, yes. I'm not convinced there's enough to satisfy WP:N though. Two magazine articles don't really substantiate the claims made above, and Google Books simply links to a passing mention in a book about the play itself. It apparently doesn't even get a chapter of it's own, just a couple paragraphs! If someone is willing to work relevant citations into the article which can show these characters and/or this scene are notable themselves, I'd be willing to reconsider. As it stands, though, I don't see it. -- Kesh 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Google books link you mention is just one of many Google Books results. Some are more substantial. This book seems to devote an entire chapter to the Gravediggers. Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm convinced the article can be expanded. But, it needs to be. Changing my vote, provided someone actually bothers to write the article in a way that isn't a stub. -- Kesh 14:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be hard to do that right away, as the best sources aren't easily accessible. Just give it time to grow. There is no deadline. Zagalejo^^^ 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kesh, given how recent the play is, it's a shame it hasn't had more study. Perhaps in time it will, but can we wait that long? --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... what? This is Hamlet we're talking about here. It's not exactly "recent." Besides, yes, we can wait. Some things may not be notable until after you and I are dead, and we can wait to have those articles. There is no deadline. -- Kesh 14:11, 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 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Steel Dark Age Re-Enactment Society[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 01:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

d: not notable pn: RogueNinja_talk 07:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No cites, not even have a webpage to cite to. Of course, webpages weren't around in the Dark Ages either, so having one would be a dilemma, wouldn't it? Mandsford 02:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, nothing reliable to reference it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:01, 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 by (less than clear) consensus as passing WP:LIST and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of African Americans[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article duplicates Category:Lists of African Americans, which is sufficient to serve the encyclopedic needs of a single location for the lists. The prior AfD nomination was mistaken about its contents and that AfD was withdrawn. -- Jreferee t/c 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the supercategory's presence. Falls within WP:LIST, but is kind of redundant. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The superlist presents the other lists within a useful hierarchy according to occupation or time period. The category can only list them alphabetically by title. The superlist is thus not redundant to the category, and is useful in a way that the category cannot replicate. Nick Graves 03:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General comment What exactly is the problem with having both lists and categories? I've never understood why people are in such a hurry to delete lists. A lot of new users don't even notice that the categories exist. Zagalejo^^^ 03:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with your confusion. There's quite a bit of CFD "this should be a list" and AFD "this should be a category" kicking back and forth and no real consensus other than the general observation that lists should attempt to add value above being a category. When they do this, though, is largely subjective. --Dhartung | Talk 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice: why do we classify people by race, anyway? The category is more than enough in my view. As a list this is unmaintainable and useless. It's also offensive to me -- what's the implication but that all notable African Americans can be listed on one page? Pah, it's silly anyhow. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to category.--Victor falk 19:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this list in part so that the "Lists of Americans" infobox would have an African-American component -- it's kind of pointless to have any of the items in that infobox if you don't have one of the largest ethnic groups in the country in it. Other reasons were to provide quicker links to lists that don't exactly fall into the category, such as List of civil rights leaders which doesn't properly fit in Category:Lists of African Americans. This list also provides easy access to List of Black Britons, List of Black Canadians, which fall outside the African American category but which might prove very useful to someone browsing the subject and interested in comparing and contrasting. This list also provides quick access to List of Black Jews, which overlaps with African Americans. The category would provide none of these links as well, if at all. Noroton 04:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is no requirement or even suggestion in MOS that WP cannot have both lists and categories on the same general subject. Lists and categories serve different purposes for different WP audiences. As for this specific list (broken out for convenience into article sub lists), it has equal use with all ethnic lists of F00 Americans. The U.S. is, and always has been, an ethnically diverse country; attempts to hide that fact in WP reflects the POV of the editor, not truth. Hmains 18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Superior navigation tool in this instance (as detailed by Noroton). In addition, no policy, guideline or manual of style supports deletion. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes states, "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. One should not be deleted in favor of the other. Instead, each should be used to update the other. This provides two core methods of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents. The "category camp" shouldn't dismantle Wikipedia's list-based navigation system, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system". In accordance with the precedents for list deletions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Lists , "lists nominated for overlapping categories are often kept". Precedent set in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Russian Americans suggests that "a common ethnicity means the article escapes WP:NOT#IINFO". In the explicit guidelines established in Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ#What is the difference between a list and a category?: ''Grouping articles into a category is not the same as making a list of articles. If you have a category that has vague criteria or that adds and removes members frequently, then maintaining a simple list is often more appropriate." This is applicable to List of African Americans: as more African Americans are establishing WP:notability and thus may fulfill the various inclusion criteria currently set for the individual lists, the inclusion criteria may change when it comes to degree of fame needed for inclusion and/or the lists may grow. Random categorization cannot handle this scenario. Also, as per established policy in Wikipedia:Overcategorization: "not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as 'category clutter". This list is an elegant solution to the problems mentioned. Pia 23:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - overlapping (redundancy) between categories and lists is fine. The two types of pages leapfrog each other. The Transhumanist 08:30, 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. MaxSem 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comitatus (re-enactment)[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They seem to have done a decent amount of historical research, but that's not the point of a Wikipedia article. Nyttend 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original drafter of the page and thus declare my interest. Reasoning: 1 The primary purpose of the article is to provide disambiguation from political group(s?) identified by the name 'Comitatus Posse' as well as the other entries currently on the disambiguation page. 2 I started by stylistically echoing entries for similar groups in the UK - (Regia Anglorum and The Vikings). 3 In an attempt to improve the entry more clearly to the purposes of Wikipedia, I have tried to address some of the issues within re-enactment that keep getting deleted from the more general subject entries (just look at the wars over at the 'Roman Military Equipment' page!), included references which I hope will be of use to someone doing research in the area and, to avoid promotion, added external links to other Late Roman groups, which do not have entries themselves yet. If there are other stylistic issues (too much info? I will happily re-edit. 4 Within re-enactment in the UK and Roman Re-enactment world-wide the group is already notable. I have just added the (now first) reference to a book published this year about the period which is based on the group's work, so I think the 'coverage' is about to increase dramatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvianus (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When researching the world of the Late Roman period on the web, sadly the word Comitatus leads to various political groupings of the modern era. However as it stands this entry gives access to the leading research group recreating the Late Roman period in Europe. They do have a significant profile which includes sponsoring archeological conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portreath (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Portreath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Secret ^sup 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of secondary coverage supporting the group's notability. The references in the article are to works on Roman history, with no mention of the group. A news archive search does find a couple of mentions in the local press, but they are descriptions of upcoming events of the "What's On" variety, and not evidence of notability. Thomjakobsen 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of links establishing facts about Roman history does nothing to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the cited sources support the notability of the subject of the article—viz, Comitatus (re-enactment). Deor 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well-referenced, if the article were on another subject entirely. — Music Maker 5376 02:58, 21 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. Jbeach ^sup 20:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

Unsourced in-universe information. A list of bosses in a game is a collection of indicriminate information. — Malcolm (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a list of boss characters, with info about their roles and such. Yes, gamecruft keeps getting in, but the regular editors work to remove it and keep the article focused on the plot info. As for sourcing - untrue, we use info from the Zeldapedia, quotes from the games, etc. The project is in the middle of a lot of work, and we are trying to find all the references we need to.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant reliable, outside world references. Quotes from games have low accessibility and are in-universe, and wikis are generally considered unreliable, seeing as anyone can edit them. — Malcolm (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What KrytenKoro said. Knowitall 10:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per KrytenKoro Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 12:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — useless fan cruft; blatant vio of WP:V. --Agüeybaná 14:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks to be an encyclopedic treatment of the material, complete but concise and doesn't include extraneous information like strategies used to defeat each boss, how many hits it takes to kill them, etc. If better sourcing is needed, the Zelda series has quite a number of published guides, just take a quick look on Amazon or any bookstore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it flies in the face of WP:FICT, then defecates on it. Axem Titanium 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

There are many results for verifiable sources talking about the bosses. We are sorry that material hasn't been refed yet, but we are quite busy with the Phantom Hourglass articles, and other edit wars that keep going on. This subject does in fact have notability, it's just that the refs have yet to be pointed out, so this needs to be fixed instead of deleted.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are various comments that there are bosses; there doesn't appear to be critical commentary. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any long commentary on the bosses alone, but for PH alone, they are mentioned variously as "engaging", "inventive" "not tough", and a few on how how the bosses are used is traditional in the series. ("Zelda titles frequently follow a close formula --enter dungeon, find specific object or weapon, use it to kill boss, repeat-- and Phantom Hourglass sticks ...", "and it's clear that Konami designed them while borrowing techniques from a series renowned for grand boss fights: The Legend of Zelda.", "Of course, that sand is kept in dungeons by bosses, so if you played a Zelda game before, you know what you have to do from that point.") They don't provide much info on creation, no, but we would have to get that from the creators (or the retrospectives on the collector's edition disc and at the front of some of the guides). However, these characters are notable, and are talked about in many of the articles about the games, which should satisfy WP:N. WP:V can be done according to Zelda.com, or in-game quotes, as well as the odd news article, and the creation section would only require someone to do some digging to create.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And would one paragraph of out of-universe info on the reception of bosses in the games merit the giant list we have before us? Really, unless specific commentary, such as how these bosses were created or designed, et al, can be found, I highly doubt the relevant bits couldn't be merged. David Fuchs^(talk) 21:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no out of universe perspective on why it is notable. Fails WP:FICT. David Fuchs^(talk) 19:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge into appropriate lists. -- Jelly Soup 19:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Zeldapedia--Victor falk 19:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki If we can find outside sources for specific bosses that lets them reach notability requirments, we can make that article for that boss. But most of these guys aren't important, other than justbeing a big fight. Very few of them have actual plot or story significance, and they have next to no 3rd party sources. The idea that Phantom Hourglass is interfereing with finding sources doesn't make sense to me, considering how long this article has been around. The only reason I hadn't already put it up for deletion was because I figured it would get snowballed, like the characters page. DurinsBane87 22:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or Delete this is pure unadulterated gamecruft. WP:NOT a game guide. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because The Legend of Zelda is one of the most notable game series and bosses are integral aspect of video games. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bosses as a whole are. But is a list of every boss in every game? David Fuchs^(talk) 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines I've read, only the subject of the article needs notability to be included - if characters are notable as a set, then they can be talked about both as a set and individually on their page. Like FFVIII - together, the characters are highly notable, but only a few are notable by themselves. However, that's why we have lists of characters, is to be able to cover them still.

As for my claim about TPH - I don't know why sources were never looked up before, as I've tried asking others to help do it while they were reorganizing the page, and I've tried to look for some of the info myself. However, I'm not very good at finding creation info, so I can't do it alone, and there's lots of other pages that I'm working on that are in much worse shape.

About the third-party sources - the guidelines only require that third-party sources exist, not that they be the bulk of the article. So long as we can establish notability and outside commentary, which I belive I have showed we can, and we demonstrate that in the article, we can spend the rest of the time using first-party sources, as long as they are described out-of-universe style.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete- The article has no independent notability outside of the Zelda games, and as such should be transwikied and deleted. Judgesurreal777 22:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sub-article, which doesn't need fully independent notability. It is talked about by reliable, verifiable sources, and though by its nature it cannot be seperated from the series, it satisfies the requirements for an acceptable sub-article.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm.. to quote myself: There is not such thing as a subarticle. All articles on Wikipedia are created equal, with the right to pursue happiness, liberty and featured article status, and to slily imply that there is such a thing as an Unterartikel is to the promote the wikiracist agenda of the cabal who seeks to undermine and corrupt the...--victor falk 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then logically, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII should never have made featured. Or how so much of the FF project made "featured topic" - because subarticles are included. I never said this article cannot achieve featured status - merely that it is silly to require that it be notable while entirely separate from TLoZ, since many featured articles have not had that requirement.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any place that indicates that Characters of Final Fantasy VIII are subarticles, when we don't even have subarticles. The various articles in the FF project made featured due to the quality of the work put into them, not because other stuff exists. -- Jelly Soup 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where "Other stuff exists" comes in - Characters of FFVIII made featured status, which makes it a perfect thing to compare fiction articles against. It too is a list of characters in a game, and yes, this article needs a lot of cleaning up, but that is not why it was nominated for deletion - it was nominated for being an "innapropriate subject for wikipedia", and yet an article with an analogous subject made featured. I fully agree that the article needs to be cleaned up, that creation and criticism sections need to be added, that "cultural impact", if we can find it, needs to be included, that reffing needs to be done, etc...but so does every fiction article that isn't already perfect. I have demonstrated why, to my understanding, this article is acceptable material for Wikipedia to cover - whether it is in satisfactory shape is another question, and one that is solved by work, not deletion.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion because, as is, it violates WP:A, WP:FICTION and WP:NOT#INFO. Saying that every other fiction article needs the same thing as this article doesn't protect THIS article from deletion. If you agree that the article needs work and can be fixed, I would suggest you devote some energy to that task. -- Jelly Soup 18:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I've shown how it doesn't violate WP:A (news articles, game magazines, Zelda.com), Fiction (It is a sub-article for a notable subject, that in fact has aspects of its own notability), and is not an indiscriminate list (it covers boss characters, mentions how they interact with the storyline, and condenses sections into a critique as much as currently possible). Yes, it needs to be improved, and yes, I am working on it - I've been doing it for a long time, and trying to get others to help me. But the problems it has are the kind we put up tags for, saying "please work on this problem", not "this page needs to be deleted".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

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.

Keep as the boss characters are just as notable as a set as say the page on the recurring minor characters in TLOZ series, the Zelda weapons page, the enemies page, etc. To say it has no independent notability outside of the Zelda games goes for just about all of the Zelda articles that are not the series page, tv show page, or a specific Zelda game title page.172.168.177.94 04:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other crap exists is not a valid argument. DurinsBane87 03:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the boss page has just as much notability to exists as a majority of these other pages dealing with minor characters, weapons, races, etc. from Zelda. If the boss page is nominated for deletion because it doesn't live up to Wikipedia's standards due to having "no independent notability outside of the Zelda games" as Judgesurreal777 stated, then every one of these articles should also be nominated for deletion for the same reason.172.134.38.103 05:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that should happen, maybe it will. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. DurinsBane87 07:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article can be improved and the in-universe style removed, then I vote Transwiki Mandanthe1 07:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either Cleaned up and Kept or Merge with Enemies of the Zelda series article. Unknown Dragon 04:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but Transwiki if left unimproved. Haipa Doragon (talk) 10:44, 20 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 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Empire[edit]

Non-notable historical reenactment group. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Masaruemoto 01:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Bad reasons for this: I know people who are part of Adria, and it's been around for well over a decade (as a fork group of SCA, if I remember right). Good reason: the history is documentable (or documented), and those same people can probably find the resources. Of course, if they can't.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable group, no independent reliable sources. Kesh 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm getting 40 Google News hits [43]. Unfortunately most of them are behind paywalls, but the group appears notable and verifiable. Bláthnaid 14:19, 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 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of dadaistic pieces[edit]

Article is not a list of dadaistic pieces but a list of composers and an artist. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “dadaistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, rename, expand - The principles of the Dada movement are pretty clearly understood, even if artists and critics don't agree 100% about everything. I think an article on notable Dada works (in various media) is useful and can be clearly and objectively assembled. Though, if the page isn't expanded, the page on Dada can just include a section of representative works. Torc2 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; just more flotsam and jetsam here. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with having a list of dadaistic pieces, but such a list would have to use reliable sources, and have a set of reasonable inclusion criteria. None of this information is sourced, and even if it were, there would not be enough information yet to justify an article separate from Dada. Nick Graves 03:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless. This will never be a decent list. --Folantin 07:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're just saying the list will always be incomplete, the AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that reason isn't sufficient for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. I know that when I was studying music, a list of key representative pieces for genres like this would have been enormously helpful. We just need to be diligent about establishing a clear purpose and maintaining the articles. Torc2 09:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research, and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 20:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no article. Moreschi ^Talk 09:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —David Eppstein 22:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, add to Dada if any missing. Nomination is neither correct nor fair (as list is now), but this is still not needed as a searate article. Johnbod 22:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If we convert all these lists to categories, what would be the ref criteria and where/how would we source them? (Real question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.) Torc2 05:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, as per Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines, the inclusion of an article in a hypothetical Categorie:Dadaistic music would be established with consensus on a page by page basis. (I suspect that Dadaistic music would not be the most supportable category anyway though.) There is, however, already a Category:Minimalistic compositions. For most works included in that category there are ample sources that can probably be found in the Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians and other music reference books. When in doubt works should probably not be included. --S.dedalus 20:37, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of broadcasting data for Rome (TV series)[edit]

Blatantly fails WP:DIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not an Electronic program guide. Per MoS style guideline, avoid statements that will date quickly. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Closer broadcasters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International broadcasters for 24 (TV series), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Smallville broadcasters and home video releases. -- Wikipedical 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator. --Fredrick day 00:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Info will date quickly, fails WP:DIRECTORY. This is what TV Guide is for. Nick Graves 03:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rome (TV series) so that if someone really wants it, they can find it. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:01, 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. W.marsh 01:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svartby[edit]

Non-notable band that doesn't meet WP:BAND. Google hits just show discography links, press releases and blog pages. Name not easily searchable due to similar place name. -- WebHamster 00:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allow me to explain the reasons why this band fails WP:MUSIC. This band has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the band itself and reliable, They have yet to have any hits on any national music chart. Although they have released two albums so far, none of them are a major label. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:16, 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of surrealistic pieces[edit]

Article is not a list of surrealistic pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “surrealistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Surrealistic" isn't really clearly defined. Torc2 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Torc2. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - article does not match title, "surreal" and "piece" are not adequately defined, and Happy Birthday isn't listed ;) SkierRMH 01:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A song written over a hundred years ago to different words that somehow is still under copyright and generates royalties for AOL Time Warner? Yeah, you'd have to be stoned out of your gourd to believe a story like that. :-) Torc2 09:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list built from reliable sources identifying pieces as surrealistic might be ok, but without any sources, this is just original research. Nick Graves 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not changing my vote, but it's worth noting that AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that a list being unfinished (or unfinishable) and possibly subjective isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. If someone has a reliable source that clearly defines 'Surrealism' as a genre of music, I could see this being a valid list of representative works. Torc2 09:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree surrealist in music isn't well defined. Most of these musical genre lists would be better attached to the main article where definitions can be discussed in detail and a highly selective list of key xxx pieces, according to appropriate expert sources, is useful. Espresso Addict 13:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article is indicative of the problem that has plagued the main Surrealism article: a failure to adequately define "the surreal" and/or a failure to understand Breton's definition. The term "surreal" (or, even worse, "surrealistic") now means something significantly different than what Breton said in his manifesto of 1924. Since there is an article on Surrealism in music, whatever is verifiable in this "List of surrealistic pieces" should be merged there, and this "list" deleted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:57, 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. W.marsh 01:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minimalistic pieces[edit]

Article is not a list of minimalistic pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “minimalistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, expand -- There are fairly clear techniques and aesthetic criteria for what makes a piece of music 'Minimalist.' I think this article should be renamed to something like List of notable Minimalist works though. Torc2 00:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it’s a HUGE movement. There are a potently infinite numbers of pieces. (Especially because minimalist composers write a LOT of music.) Phillip Glass’s music alone would be over a thousand I believe. --S.dedalus 01:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I suggested the rename and the notability limitation. True, Glass's factory has pumped out a ton of music, but he's only got a dozen or so that are really historically or aesthetically revolutionary. The list would be essentially complete with a few representative works from Glass, Steve Reich, LaMonte Young, Terry Riley, Frederic Rzewski, and a couple dozen others. It would be much smaller than, say List of musical works in unusual time signatures, which survived an AfD vote based on the presumption that the fact a list will be big and will never be complete isn't cause enough for deletion. Torc2 01:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem, though, is that very few of the composers people know as “minimalist” wanted to be called that. It’s something of an arbitrary designation. --S.dedalus 01:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's really kind of irrelevant though. A lot of the standard, accepted classifications were rejected by their artists, and many were originally intended to be derogatory. However, that really doesn't make the genres invalid if they're commonly accepted, used and understood by people discussing the subject. Torc2 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It might be possible to create an encyclopedic list of pieces identified by reliable sources as minimalist. But there are no sources here. That makes this original research, where pieces are judged by the whims of editors who may or may not be informed on the subject. Nick Graves 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - Why not just request sources to be added then? Torc2 08:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My delete recommendation serves the same function as a request for sources. If an editor were to step up and provide sources, I would reconsider my recommendation. Otherwise, the article in its current state is unencyclopedic, and ought to be deleted. Nick Graves 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but an AfD gives someone less than five days. Tagging it at least gives people a couple weeks or so. Torc2 19:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been in existence since 2004. That's enough time for someone to have sourced the content, if they cared to. It's a minor loss if the article is deleted, since it can easily be recreated in better form by someone who has the sources. Torc2, do you have the sources to confirm the information in this article? This sort of unverified stuff tends to just hang around indefinitely without improvement unless someone takes the initiative to open up some books and add sources. Source tags are generally ignored, while an AfD nomination tends to inspire such initiative. Nick Graves 02:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do have sources that would enable me to improve this list. I don't, however, have time in the next two days to improve it. Realistically though, all one would have to do is add a ref section pointing to any of the major books on minimalism (like this or this) or the Grove and every piece currently on the list would be sufficiently sourced. Torc2 08:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you plan to source the information, but do not have time to do so presently, I suggest you save a copy of the article, so that it can be restored with proper sourcing later. If you can find a source providing an authoritative definition of what a minimalistic piece is, add sources for at least a couple of pieces identified reliably as minimalistic, and delete the unsourced information in the next day or so, I would see that as a good start toward improving the article, and would provisionally change my recommendation to keep. Nick Graves 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to list of key minimalist works or similar, and source. In contrast to the other musical genre lists at AfD today, minimalist does have a fairly clear definition. I don't think it matters that the original composers didn't necessarily brand themselves as minimalist originally. I agree a complete listing would be too large and a set of key works much more useful. The current list does need expert attention, though eg I don't believe Pärt's work is generally considered minimalist. Espresso Addict 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it doesn't matter in the least what the composers themselves say, because of the NPOV policy. As with the Jazz Standards page, this one could easily be redone as you said, again similar to List of important operas. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better as category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:56, 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, as Webhamster said, no sources to back it up. Secret ^sup 20:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every Step You Take[edit]

Non-notable film documentary. An article that is being used to advertise rather than educate. Author removed prod with no reason given. -- WebHamster 00:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this film is non-notable? There are hundreds of other articles about films of that kind on Wikipedia, which deal with different subjects and include much less information about the film. Take, for instance, The War on Drugs. I have given reason for removal of prod in the Edit summary - the addition of the interviewee list is very relevant and crucial to the understanding of this film. I was also about to include a "Criticims" section about this film to the article. Please reply. Thanks. --Thenino 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of other similar articles has no bearing on whether or not this article should be kept. As for notability, please review Wikipedia's notability guidelines, especially the movie guidelines. shoy 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added 'Specific Criticisms' section, based on newspaper and radio reviews of the film. --Thenino 01:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 3rd party references listed, the film has appeared in multiple festivals on different continents. Appears to pass film notability for an independent film. SkierRMH 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are no independent 3rd party references. There are links to show that the film was in the festivals, but that's it. The BBC link has nothing to do with the film and is about the film "Faceless" that is mentioned in the text (why it's in there is beyond me anyway). There are no independent reviews. Being in 7 film festivals is not "distribution", and being in a film festival is not in itself evidence of notability. There is nothing in the article to suggest that the film has had any distribution deals. Admittedly I'm not an expert in the subject but none of those festivals look to be major ones. On top of that we have WP:COI as the article author appears to be the film's director, a first time director. The article has already been speedied twice for blatant advertising. This is just another way of advertising the film. ---- WebHamster 02:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User:Thenino is probably the writer/director, Nino Leitner, who also wrote all info on the IMDb entry. --Evb-wiki 15:00, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of postminimalistic pieces[edit]

Article is not a list of postminimalistic pieces but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “postminimalistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'd change my mind if someone can give me a clear, universally understood definition of what "post-minimalist" really means. Torc2 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-minimalist is a catch all term some critics came up with to describe living composers who can’t be placed in any other category. A number of these “postminimalistic” composers really resent being called it too. John Adams for instance. --S.dedalus 01:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's cool. I understand in a vague sense what it means, but as a genre it doesn't seem to have the clear aesthetic criteria like Minimalism or Serialism. It might in another decade. Torc2 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point. I will be the first to ask for a deletion review in that case. --S.dedalus 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per Torc2. It also has a lot of red links....—Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with all the lists recently nominated for deletion by S.dedalus, this article is utterly sourceless, so fails WP:OR in its identification of pieces as postminimalist. Nick Graves 04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not changing my vote, but it's worth noting that AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures establishes a precedent that a list being unfinished (or unfinishable) and possibly subjective isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. Torc2 09:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 20:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better as a category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:56, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of nationalistic pieces[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of nationalistic pieces

Article is not a list of nationalistic pieces (whatever that is) but a list of composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “nationalistic” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. How many more of these are there? Torc2 00:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many more. Category:Lists of pieces --S.dedalus 00:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of those are AfD worthy though. The ones on polytonality and atonality are pretty objectively definable. Torc2 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing too! My fingers are getting tired. :) (And yes I agree, there are some good ones.) --S.dedalus 01:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, "nationalistic" and "pieces" are not defined; massively open to COI on inclusions. SkierRMH 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are certainly nationalistic pieces, and a useful list might be made for them. But this is not that list. No sources = no assurance that this is anything more than the opinions of editors. Nick Graves 04:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there certainly were nationalist movements in music, this list is hopeless. Sibelius' Finlandia? Yes. Bach's Brandenburg Concertos? What the...?--Folantin 07:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Graves and Folantin. Moreschi ^Talk 08:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not changing my vote, but it's worth noting that AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures establishes the a precedent that a list being unfinished (or unfinishable) and possibly subjective isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. I just don't think 'nationalist' is a clearly defined genre of music. Maybe a list of notable pieces with nationalist themes would work. Torc2 09:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overbroad opinion based categorization. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:53, 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.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of impressionistic pieces[edit]

Article is not a list of impressionistic pieces but a list of two composers. The subject is also completely open to interpretation. Who’s to say what “impressionistic piece” means? Even experts conflict in their interpretations of this. This page obviously has no usable content and is original research. S.dedalus 00:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 00:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Torc2 00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename - Now that I think about it, "Impressionist" does have a somewhat defined set of aesthetic and historical criteria. Experts might disagree on specific works, but I think there's enough common definition to make it useful as a topic. I'd suggest renaming it something like List of notable musical impressionist works. Torc2 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Debussy nor Ravel wanted to be called that though. They really hated that term. --S.dedalus 01:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom & OR/POV. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 00:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Signed by KoЯnfan71^{My Talk}_{Sign Here!} 00:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the fact it only lists Debussy and Ravel says it all, really. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - & as others the terms are not defined herein, which leaves to massive COI on inclusion. Agree with Torc2 however, if renamed/recreated with an acceptable definition included it has possibilities. SkierRMH 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once again, sources must be insisted upon for lists such as this, since without sources, entries may be added without regard for verifiability. Nick Graves 04:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some pieces by Debussy and Ravel. Very helpful, I don't think. --Folantin 07:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no enough usable material here to justify a list. Moreschi ^Talk 09:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The argument that the list will always be incomplete or subjective really isn't enough reason to delete; the AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures establishes the a precedent of that. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. I know that when I was studying music, a list of key representative pieces for genres like this would have been enormously helpful. We just need to be diligent about establishing a clear purpose and maintaining the articles. Torc2 09:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia is never 100% complete and so deleting an article because it cannot be completed doesn't really make sense. However deleting because it is WP:OR does make sense. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list is not just perpetually incomplete, it’s also original research and original research gets deleted on Wikipedia. --S.dedalus 20:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not just tag it with the {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} tags and give users a change to shape the article up? Torc2 03:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article doesn’t just contain original research, it IS original research. --S.dedalus 06:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That really doesn't answer the question, though. The article is weak now, but it wouldn't be that hard to pull out a couple books on music history and find citations to justify the items on already this list. I mean, if you ask most music historians to name a few important impressionist composers and works, they're going to name Debussy and Ravel and most of the works on that list. By deleting this, we're essentially saying that the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia; why not just tag it to say the article itself is bad and needs to be improved? Torc2 06:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems pretty obvious to me, but since you ask. . . For one this article has been in essentially this condition since 2004! If it hasn’t been improved since then it isn't going be. Wikipedia already has a List of compositions by Claude Debussy and a List of compositions by Maurice Ravel so this list is totally redundant as well. I was simply bold and nominated the page for deletion instead of tagging and letting some other user deal with this mess. As the user bellow points out this could be better as a category however. Feel free to create one if you wish. --S.dedalus 20:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, this article has been in this condition for...well, forever. But it also hasn't been marked to indicate there was anything wrong with it or anything requesting improvement. I think where we're differing is that you're looking at this list as it is, and I'm thinking about how useful the list could be if done well. I don't fault you for nominating it, I just think it could be worthy of keeping with a little work. The thing is, I don't want to make the effort with the article if it's going to be deleted in three days or so. If it's deleted, maybe the category thing would work. Torc2 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better as a category. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:51, 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 speedy keep nat^tang 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Clark[edit]

former low level politican with no recognition. needs to be deleted as not too well known except in parts of rural Alberta.

User:Thebigbeannight23 03:22 AM UTC, October 13, 2007

Speedy Keep: Bad faith nomination by a SPA who's only contribution is this AFD. Please close this AfD ASAP. ---- WebHamster 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Only a former prime minister of Canada. Clarityfiend 02:32, 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 01:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thameside Radio[edit]

original research; article started and edited by a user, copied from information on his own website Rapido 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN radio station and mostly OR. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 21:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The top doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. Therapy Through The Ears indicates that Southend Hospital Radio originally was called Thameside Radio. Google books has a hit for Thameside Radio. -- Jreferee t/c 07:51, 13 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, Aarktica 08:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unreferenced article about a non-notable pirate radio station is not what Wikipedia needs. -- Mikeblas 10:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it rather interesting and didn't know anything about this station. Gryffindor 18:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May be interesting reading material but that does not make it notable. Vegaswikian 02:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is notable. Thameside was an element in London's pop culture in the 1980's. The entry also shows how it influenced the BBC. I enjoyed the article and found it useful. As I was a listener I'll go through my archives and add references to print media and published recordigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.124 (talk) 15:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Magwood[edit]

This is a disputed prod. The issue is of notability. My opinion is that this article is better sourced than most articles of this type, but I'm not sure the threshhold has been reached yet. This is a procedural nomination. UsaSatsui 16:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 17:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-written and well-sourced, and meets WP:BIO and WP:BLP. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 17:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC) Delete Now that I look at it, I agree with Chase me ladies. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague delete. As the editor who has PRODed this twice (sorry!), I'm not sure. However, it was created by the subject of the article, so I'm loathe to keep it. Sourced it may be, but it smacks of "I'm a local celebrity, LOVE ME"! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chase me ladies. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to point out that although the creator of the article is a SPA, there's no evidence they are the subject, and there's no explicit prohibition on making an article about yourself in WP:COI --UsaSatsui 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trudat. But it really needs to be discouraged; and any attempts at a slight re-write result in the article being reverted (in my experience, but then I am not a very friendly editor when it comes to any sort of vanity article!) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 01:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7.--Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Article asserts notability. Not an speedy canditate. --UsaSatsui 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um, did you guys see the two articles about her? Yeah that gives her notability. If she was the one who created the article, (how do you know this by the way? The creating user's user and talk pages are both redlinked) then remind her of WP:AUTO and remove any COI. She's notable. i ^said 03:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One of those articles is a school newspaper. Just pointig that out. --UsaSatsui 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. I'm talking about the newspaper and the radio one. i ^said 19:28, 7 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, Aarktica 09:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chase. Borderline speedy delete with an almost-certain WP:COI issue thrown in for favour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quote from WP:N "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is not reached for this article. Neozoon 22:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the articles on her by a newspaper and a radio? i ^said 00:03, 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 all, redirect to The Game (rapper) and salt.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You Know What It Is Vol. 1

You Know What It Is Vol. 1[edit]

Not notable enough to own its article and just like 50 Cent's mixtapes were redirected i think we should do the same for The Game's for same reason. --West Coast Ryda 11:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as nn. Redirect if you must. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC with no "significant coverage". Articles cannot inherit notability. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These have little, if any, potential to expand. At most, they should be mentioned in the main article and discography. Spellcast 23:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all follow precedent established with 50 cents work. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep all of these articles and similar ones as I and others that I know find them to be very useful when looking up mixtape information as many other sites either do not have said information or is not as reliable as this is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.136.138 (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Information? Can you tell me anything that u find helpful in the article, the only thing i see is a track listing with some infobox and an intro saying "..." is a mixtape released by The Game in that year. West Coast Ryda 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N, article not proper referenced Neozoon 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know thore mixtapes are no notables per WP:MUSIC. But they actually are, I know the articles can't go longer that a track listing and an infobox, but the better choice is to redirect all of the articles to The Game (rapper). People do searchs about his mixtapes, and a redirect would be the most decent choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasco 0 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These mixtapes contain the so called "diss" songs to the G-Unit members who have feud with The Game (rapper).--Tasc0 03:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh a redirect is what i have been thinking to do when it is settled down. West Coast Ryda 15:26, 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 01:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anamika Press[edit]

Non-notable, has WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:COI issues. β^_command 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The press is well represented by its support to Indic open source. Its ICT division Indicybers has helped produce the first ever suite of programming langauges based on Indian languages. Please refer to the article on Hindawi Programming System. When the article on Indicybers was added it was redirected to this page; and now this page is marked for deletion. I agree this article needs updates / rewrites, but it is certainly not bad enough for deletion. Tell me one thing, since it is marked for deletion can I edit and add the refernces now? I suggest expanding the article on Indicybers, which is recognised independently and probably redirecting this page to that article, since the press now mainly functions as Indicybers with related publishing. But _please_ let us have a healthy detailed discussion. Hi pedler 06:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)hi_pedler[reply]

Delete per nom. Hello again, Hi pedler; yes, you can add sources and references; again, though, the sources should be very clearly talking about Anamika Press. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 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. CitiCat^♫ 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Footage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Raw Footage

The album is supposed to be Ice Cube's next one and hasn't got a release date yet. So i guess it is Crystal Balling there. --West Coast Ryda 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think that this article is WP:CRYSTAL. Ice Cube have stated that the album will be released after WC's last album. Two source have confirmed this information.--Tasc0 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know it's confirmed in multiple interviews and i added two sources there but the release date is not known as of yet so in my opinion it's crystal bally because it doesent have a release date. Let's see if anyone else comes and confirms anybody's opinion. West Coast Ryda 18:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not meet the WP:CRYSTAL criteria. For example, in the point number one: Ice Cube stated that he's been recording some work for the album, so it is in progress. In ponit number three: "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions". Ice Cube is a notable artists per WP:MUSIC.--Tasc0 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course he is notable even rated best rapper alive in my list. But that album needs a release date to deserve it's own article. Of course we can recreate it when the album has got it's release date. For example if i say as a singer my next album is due out in 2011 so it doesent mean we should create an article that states "title" is an album by this singer due out in 2011 with a reference. It's crystal ball if you ask me. But you've got ur own opinion so i see it. --West Coast Ryda 19:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you're saying does not make sence at all. The article does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. There has been some work in the progress and it is a notable artists. Period.--Tasc0 19:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I dont think u did even read my reply because if u did you would understand what i was on about. The album has no release date as of yet. So if Ice Cube would confirm it's due out in 2042 should we keep it until then? --West Coast Ryda 20:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Doesn't mater if there's no release date information. What does mater is that your reason was the article is WP:CRYSTAL, wich I replied it didn't meet that criteria. I don't know how to put it out so you can understand it.--Tasc0 20:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        "By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." That's saying it all. West Coast Ryda 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That only says it's not verifiable. This album it is, saying that will be released after WC's album and that Ice Cube started working on it. I'm removing this page from my watchlist because it seems that you don't understand, and I'm not going to repeat the same thing again and again. Thank you. Anyways, the result should be a keep. The article does not meet WP:CRYSTAL.--Tasc0 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Ice Cube really said about the album is "It's more political than my last record. That's all I can say", which is pretty vague. That's basically the most detailed info available. WP:CBALL says an article should be kept only if the event is certain to take place. Earlier this year, Ice Cube said it was going to be released in the 3rd quarter of 2007, which has now passed. Wait until more definitive info comes out. Spellcast 23:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Album with no release date or other verifiable information. Not that the article even says, "he stated that Raw Footage may be released after WC's last studio album..." (emphasis mine). Sheer speculation stub, which means delete until a firm release date is given. Kesh 00:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- He stated that he's been recording some work for the album. So it is not WP:CRYSTAL.--Tasc0 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is. Until the album is announced with a date, it's still speculation that it'll even come out. The material may never see the light of day, or may be rolled into a different release (movie soundtrack, etc.). Until an actual release date is given, it's all sheer speculation at this point. -- Kesh 02:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, according to WP:CRYSTAL, if some work is in progress and it is about a notable artists, "we" should have an artlice about it. And what has do to with anything the thing you said about being rolled into a movie soundtrack or something like that? That doesn't make any sence at all with this nomination.--Tasc0 04:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:BALL, Spellcast explained it well. Third quarter has now passed, not enough info available. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 18:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:BALL Neozoon 23:19, 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. CitiCat^♫ 16:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombadil[edit]

band with a very suspect notability. Will ^(talk) 17:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of this band is not in question. I'm not sure that you have an evidence against the fact that this band does indeed exist. They are signed to Ramseur Records. Do some research before trying to delete this page. ""User:katchanra22"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.206.58 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should not even be having this debate. Why is this article even being considered for deletion??? Katchanra22

The existence of the band isn't what's being debated here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Suspect notability is right, this one does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Burntsauce 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they have been covered in a ton of publications, so I think they do meet criteria for notability. If you check their website you would see this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.29.137 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, full disclosure, I am a member of this band. just want to add a little more information to the discussion. vis notability criteria for musicians 1, bombadil has been featured in some newspapers (The Independent Weekly, The Salisbury Post, Knoxville Daily Times, as well as mentioned in Magnet Magazine and NPR online. as far as #4 goes, bombadil has played / has shows scheduled in 12 states in the USA. bombadil also appeared on a segment of The State of Things, a program on North Carolina Public Radio. I hope the page stays intact; whatever happens we respect the will of the community. Bryanrahija 05:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This band clearly meets guideline number 1 and 4 of the WP Music guidelines. This information is verifiable. The band's website links to all of the publications that have written articles about the band.Jamisys 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a search for "Bombadil" on OiNK returns no results, not even in the request section. OiNK, generally, is a good way of determining notability, and I can think of one band which is requested and doesn't have an article. Will ^(talk) 16:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I don't see how OiNK can be a determining factor here, since there are two guidelines that are clearly met. I am not personally familiar with that particular website, but I am familiar with npr.org. I believe that to be a credible reference. Jamisys 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I researched OiNK. I would hope that we would not delete the Bombadil article due to the fact that none of their songs have been stolen by mp3 pirates using that bit torrent.Jamisys 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
I am an arts reporter for the Salisbury Post where my primary responsibility is to write about arts and entertainment in the Charlotte/Salisbury region of N.C. After I had written an article about Ramseur Records artists The Avett Brothers, I listened to other bands managed by Dolph Ramseur, and finding the music of Bombadil particularly intriguing, I sought them out for an interview. This resulted in a full article about the band in the Feb. 1, 2007 edition of our newspaper’s TimeOut! entertainment magazine. In researching my article, I was able to easily find numerous sources about their music and background. Our staff has noted that Bombadil has developed a fan base around Charlotte, and so we have continued to report their performances when they travel to this area. They are a hard-working, well-traveled group. We at the Salisbury Post regard Bombadil as an up-and-coming band of remarkable talent and we will continue to report about them to our readers. Musettamom 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not on AMG either... Will ^(talk) 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's criteria to determine notability, a band only has to meet one of the 10 criterion listed. Bombadil meets three of these:

1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and television documentaries

Please visit www.bombadilmusic.com or www.ramseurrecords.net to review most press coverage for Bombadil.

2. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources.

Bombadil has toured both nationally and internationally. If you need this to be verified, please contact Stephanie at Ramseur Records (contact info can be found on www.ramseurrecords.net). They are also signed to New Frontier Touring; a company that books The Avett Brothers, Riders in the Sky, Darrell Scott and a number of other notable acts.

3.Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

The mayor of the city of Durham, NC declared September 7th, 2007 Bombadil day because "Bombadil, a music group from Durham, NC have been playing their own unique form of music with shades of folk, rock-n-roll, ragtime, classical and indie-rock and Whereas, this form of music is what the band Bombadil considers to be true in artistic spirit and Whereas, Bombadil is honored to represent the city of Durham, NC while they continue to provoke thought and change perceptions of music through touring and album releases..."

If you would like to see a copy of the official proclamation, again, please contact Stephanie at Ramseur Records.

Clearly, since Bombadil meets not one, but three of the criterion outlined in order for them to be considered notable, this debate should be closed. I did not see "AMG" or "OiNK" anywhere on that list, so it shouldn't even be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RamseurRecords (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep-They are on iTunes. Will, correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that we have proven that the band meets the criteria for multiple reasons. We have shown that they have been covered in multiple publications. We have asked that you look at their website for links to all of those sources. Now all you keep doing is pointing out which publication they aren't mentioned in. I move to speedy keep this article due to the fact that the band's notability can not be questioned due to the publications that have written about them, and the fact that they have toured multiple states. I believe the article about Bombadil on npr.org should be enough to prove their notability.`User:jamisys

It would appear as though we have reached an agreement in keeping this article now that the notability of the band has been proven. If not, please explain. I would like to have this discussion closed asap. 74.183.206.58 17:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions typically last the full five days, unless there is an overwhelming consensus per WP:SNOW. That said, we're on the fifth day, so an admin will probably be by in the next 24 hrs or so to close this one. -- Kesh 18:59, 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 — and a general collapse into personal attacks and legal posturing. --Haemo 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ciesla[edit]

Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines of wikipedia

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Le disko[edit]

Nothing really notable here, and most of this is on other articles, such as Shiny Toy Guns. DurinsBane87 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While I love the song, it's really not that notable and no reliable sources are given to satisfy WP:N. Kesh 00:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs. The info can easily be mentioned in the album. Spellcast 01:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into We Are Pilots (v3), the album the song is from. The information about the commercials needs to be merged into the album article, and the song title is a plausible search term. Bláthnaid 14:32, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 01:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information Will ^(talk) 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article just needs a little clean-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.225.10 (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If info such as "Debbie gets friendly with a librarian in Debbie Does Dallas (1978)" isn't indiscriminate, loosely associated OR, I don't know what is. Totally unencylopedic. Spellcast 01:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although a good article on the portrayal of librarians could be written, this one isn't it. It's heavy on original research, and like the stereotypical IPC article, it's a list of occasions where someone saw a librarian on television or on a movie screen. Shhhh!!!! Mandsford 01:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. It looks like a list rather than a discussion of Librarians in popular culture. I hope they could make a Librarians IPC article like this one. This one was Afd'd as well but survived with flying colors.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as another in an unfortunately seemingly never-ending bunch of "articles" that are nothing but "spot the reference and run to the computer" trivia lists. WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 13:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article already passed two AfDs, is well-organized, and contains both references and external links that demonstrate verfiability and the existence of reliable secondary sources about the topic. Improve yes, but no real need to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the number of afds does not matter. What does matter is the fact that over 85% of this article fails WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 18:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Solidly notable, just needs improvement. it is not trivial, as claimed. every time you nominate it,it just gets better. feel free to go dig up the reliable sources on these too, that is just needs improvement. --Buridan 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sourcing but is a totally decent article. Has plenty of secondary sources and is not just a list or a collection of trivia. Jessamyn (talk) 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unfortunate traditional image of librarians in pc. is notable, and worth discussing, and there are more than enough sources for a general discussion to be added. The individual items are most of them notable, though there should be some sorting out of the ones that are about libraries rather than librarians. We discussed this sufficiently in april, when it was a keep--a keep at a time when most articles of this sort that were challenged were not kept, as compared to now. Some of the comments above seem to imply that no articles of this sort can ever be encyclopedic; this is a fringe view, and there is no policy to support that. Other arguments say that a specific item is not appropriate. That's for editing. To delete lists because individual items are erroneous is a essentially to delete all lists--which, once more, is opposed to WP policy. One of the !delete comments is that a better article could be made, to which the WP policy response is sodoit. DGG (talk) 23:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll change my vote to Weak Keep (not because I want to improve the article directly but because I want to cite WP:SOFIXIT next time with a clear conscience) Maintainers of this article, I will give you three references, you do the rest. If you don't, the article gets deleted. I'm coming from a different background so you're on your own here. a journal article, a SLA association talk, and an abstract--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We discussed this sufficiently in April - let's look at the arguments advanced in April:

"I'm having trouble seeing how this nom doesn't apply to the whole category or other article sections spread throughout WP. Although this list is not encyclopedic (or complete) in the traditional sense, to me it typifies the sort of valuable (and at times wacky) information that Wikipedia houses." IOW, WP:WAX and WP:ILIKEIT coupled with a total disregard for the policy objections;
"[T]he article...should always be marked for improvement first, unless the article is total crap." There is no basis in policy for this opinion;
"If it were a reasonable delete, there woud be no reason for the stressed words above." Completely meaningless argument;
"The function of such 'popular culture' articles (and sections), is to provide a place for people to put indiscriminate information, with which they might clutter up genuine articles." Which is flat-out not true.

Along with the customary claims of notability with nothing offered to back it up and the usual earnest protestations that the article can and will be cleaned up, only to find that six months later the article is in even worse shape than it was before. Not to mention the simple fact that consensus can change. The keep arguments were poor then, they are poor now. The article was terrible then and it's terrible now. Otto4711 17:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a list of films and television shows which have librarians in them. It provides little to nothing in the way of encyclopedic context and is wholly based on original research. RFerreira 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Easy delete via WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Xihr 01:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unqualified disaster of random, unverified factoids. Raymond Arritt 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article should be improved through regular editing. I haven't read anything that suggests that this article can't be improved and, in fact, references have been unearthed to assist in sourcing material. I have a friend who's a librarian - he's cool and his geeky brain probably knows all this stuff but I have wikipedia to turn to to find it as well as answer so many other questions. Benjiboi 12:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Regular editing" would be to delete all of the "this one time I saw a liberrian in a movie" references, which would leave, well, nothing. Otto4711 13:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that would be editing for otto's empty encyclopedia. for wikipedia, on the other hand, notable and verifiable matter. these are verifiable, these are notable, they could use some more citations and perhaps a bit of trimming or perhaps just a massive expansion. --Buridan 14:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, but it is not notable in the slightest that, for instance, In A Very Brady Sequel, Roy Martin (Tim Matheson) informs Greg Brady (Christopher Daniel Barnes) that he should date someone more of his "own speed", suggesting a librarian as an example. Otto4711 15:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here again you choose one weakest example, why not choose a stronger example to build your strawman? why not use say neal stephenson's librarian which is clearly notable as a model of google earth and is just lacking citations. or perhaps any other of the notable ones. That you can find listcruft in any list is not surprising.... it just means it needs marked for cleanup. afd is not a process to foce cleanup. --Buridan 16:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here again you make the blanket assertion that "these are notable" and then, when I point out an example that isn't notable you cry "straw man." Don't get upset at me when you make an assertion and get challenged on it. Otto4711 17:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, if you provided some evidence of universal non-notability that woudl be something, but... what you do is choose a weak example and say.. non-notable, other things are clearly notable, they have their own articles, so they must be. now, what links them together is this list. the list includes things that do not have their own articles, but the notability of the list is clear. that you try to delete these 'popular culture' and 'in fiction' articles is remarkable because you try the same tactic. --Buridan 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here you exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of notability. Yes, many of the things that have librarians in them are notable. However, they are not notable because they have librarians in them. Even the things that are actually about librarians (as opposed to simply including the word "librarian" in the script) are not notable because they have a librarian in them. They are notable because they are the subject of reliable independent sources. The notability of a book, film, TV show, whatever does not impart notability onto every single aspect of that book, film, etc. Otto4711 18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they are notable if enough of the material relates to notable material and constitutes a relationship that is notable in itself. in this case that is met. and yes otto, sometimes notability does transfer. my argument is that this list brings together notable things in a notable relationship and supports that with other materials. it needs some citations, true, just like dammit janet, but that's all it needs. mark it for improvement and move on. --Buridan 05:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an encyclopedia, not a book of trivia. --B 14:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is trivial to one person can certainly be encyclopedic to another. let's hope other editors have the good will and grace to save whatever trivial information you find of interest for when you look to wikipedia for answers and inspiration. Benjiboi 14:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really nothing more than an emotional appeal to the discredited argument that Wikipedia should be about everything. Wikipedia is not, and is not designed to be, about everything. Otto4711 15:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, but it is supposed to be about all knowledge... this contains notable knowledge.--Buridan 16:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There was a librarian in a scene off a TV show" is not knowledge. It is information. Wikipedia may be about all knowledge but it is not about all information. Otto4711 03:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wrong again, check the definition of information, any the definition of knowledge, then verify against any of the basic theories of knowledge in wikipedia, or elsewhere. this might be a basic confusion... and a huge problem. if you don't know what knowledge is.... then you clearly can't understand what belongs in wikipedia, thus your tendency to propose to delete things that are knowledge. --Buridan 14:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list of random librarian appearances. Otto4711's got it right when he says "this one time I saw a liberrian in a movie". 138.88.170.131 16:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A lot of energy spent arguing here should have been used to transform the article's list into a discussion (putting my refs into the external link section doesn't count). I have learned that the best way to get back at a deletionist is not to win an argument with him but letting him eat snow. That way you will get a better article and an extra perk of humiliating your opponent, even a for extra ownage.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yes, libraries are common in real life and used in movies/tv once in awhile. It does not mean that it is encyclopedic just to have a giant list of times libraries/librarians have been shown on tv. Also keep in mind a wide precedent against "in popular culture" articles, with this list of 200+ deleted articles [44] Dannycali 02:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not as a giant list of every time librarians have been shown - it should be well weeded - but many of the entries are notable and the topic is certainly a notable one: it's the subject of:
- "The Hollywood Librarian", dir. Ann Seidl (2007) (reviewed in various professional journals)
- What's Harry Potter Doing in the Library? Depictions of Young Adult Informati... , Jennifer Burek Pierce, International Association of School Librarianship. Selected Papers from the ....2004; pg. 73
- Librarian Stereotypes in Young Adult Literature, Michelle Peresie; Linda B Alexander, Young Adult Library Services; Fall 2005; 4, 1, pg. 24
and once I've incorporated these into the article I'll look for more. --Zeborah 05:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added some commentary to the article, and added four more useful-looking references to the talk page. I found these in the bibliography of the Peresie and Alexander article; further research is bound to find more, as they made it clear this was a reasonably well explored topic. --Zeborah 08:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but continue improving it. The new sourced content discussing stereotypes of librarians in the arts makes it clear that this is a worthwhile topic, not just a list of indiscriminate information. Additional work is needed to remove the trivial list entries and expand the discussion of the nontrivial entries.--Orlady 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, just because there were a few low-selling books/articles about stereotypes does not mean there should be a separate "article" like this about the subject. It makes WP into a total joke, and will never be taken seriously with garbage lists disguised as articles. Dannycali 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is references which determine notability, not people's opinions about the subject of the article. To reject an article for having only non-notable content and no general discussion, and then continue rejecting it when some of the content is already shown to be notable and references for a general discussion are provided, is a way of deleting everything one personally does not care about. N is verified by RSs, and published books and academic journals count. DGG (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I mentioned any book; Seidl's work is a movie. The others are scholarly papers, I've listed others on the article talkpage as well, and will find more if I have more time than the AfD will last. That I've found 7-odd scholarly articles (in just a cursory review of the literature, so as I say there'll be more) specifically on the topic of librarians in popular culture, yes, *does* make it a notable topic worthy of an article in Wikipedia. That's what Notability is. I am however happy for the 'garbage lists' themselves to be deleted by anyone who has more time than I do. --Zeborah 05:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The articles quoted by Zeborah above prove that the topic is notable. The lists could use trimming and turning into prose, though. --Itub 12:10, 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.