Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 19

< October 18	October 20 >

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, no need for a redirect--JForget 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Palace[edit]

Procedural nom. Was tagged for speedy deletion as pure vandalism. But possible hoaxes are sent to AfD. In any case, unsourced biography, not clear if there are sufficient reliable sources to back up the claims made in the article. Pascal.Tesson 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I love it when he did the push-ups! Delete as dude ranch muffins. No results found in Google News Archive that aren't misspellings of Jack Palance. No person by the name of "Jack Palace" is found in the Social Security Death Index. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete News host on a Boston Radio station isn't much of a claim to notability. Acting and death details added by IP, probable vandalism. No IMDB page found, and he's not on any Emmy winner list that I can find. Article's creator made the only major edits that can be considered credible. I don't see the subject as being notableHorrorshowj 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax per WP:RS; no evidence of Emmy at IMDb, for example. JJL 01:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, possible hoax. Yamaguchi先生 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Palance as plausible misspelling. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax and BadJoke. Masaruemoto 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack Palance per Zagalejo. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated for speedy deletion so just adding my 2p worth here. Hoax or (just possibly) attack page. Springnuts 08:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly obvious that this idiotic story is a hoax, written by a Briton or Canadian (Palace is buried near "Boston harbour") who imagines that Yanks would call their favorite (oops, favourite) radio broadcast "NewsStation". Clue for you next time, asshole... Radio stations here are W--- in the east and K---- in the west. Mandsford 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - likely hoax. Addhoc 23:32, 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, though this closure is not in any way an endorsement of the blatantly incivil behavior shown toward the article creator in this AFD. --Core desat 04:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Dunin[edit]

Stanley Dunin is a non notable aerospace engineer who fails all 6 points of WP:PROF. All scientist have been a part of something, nothing makes him exceptional. Also, being born in Poland moving to the US doesn't make him important by any means. Thousands of people move to the US, nothing makes him stand out. No independent, reliable sources exist to prove he is notable, and notability is not temporary. Simply being named by a Senator does not make you important, or notable. Being a business consultant doesn't make you notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Carbon Monoxide 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Didn't we just do this? And weren't you the nominator then, as well? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- About a month ago. I don't see any difference in doing it again. The article is vastly different, with all of the original research removed. Carbon Monoxide 23:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CO, I'm a little confused--you say it's improved, and yet you nominate for deletion? DGG (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It hasn't improved. All of the OR research was taken out and no independent, reliable sources have been brought to show the article's notability or importance. Carbon Monoxide 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether to keep or delete, but I'd like to ask: when do we plan to stop wasting time with Dunin-related AfDs? Don't people have something better to do like, say, build the project? Pascal.Tesson 23:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, most users are rather partial to some zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles, so unfortuna tely the answer is no. But that doesn't stop you, the user who hates zOMG WIKIDRAMA, soapboxing, and waging battles from writing a few articles. Maxim_{(talk) (contributions)} 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 00:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This time a firm delete, as no independent sources attesting to the importance of this individual's contributions have been brought forward in the intervening month. --Dhartung | Talk 00:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close this as last AfD was less than a month ago. This seems to me to be verging on an abuse of the AfD process. If I hadn't have participated in the last debate, I would prob have closed this. WjBscribe 00:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WJBscribe, I would hardly call this abuse of the AfD process. If the last AfD was speedy keep or even keep, sure. But both AfDs have closed with no consensus. Carbon Monoxide 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You wouldn't of course. I think its high time we brought in a proper rule against such repeat nominations though - all it takes is one delete outcome at AfD and articles tend to be gone regardless of the number of times they have been kept previously. It leads to excessive amounts of time spent by people defending articles that would better be spent elsewhere. WjBscribe 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm shocked at your tone. Carbon Monoxide 04:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WJBscribe, I concur that repeat nominations can be abusive, but (particularly in the absence of such a rule) I think a month is sufficient for a no consensus close to be brought back. That's ample time to address sourcing concerns, for example. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting the general notability criteria - the first reference is nothing more than having your name mentioned in a government letter, which doesn't count. The second reference apparently indicate he was part of a major engineering project - ok, but every major project by definition, involves hundreds of staff, so this is meaningless. Lastly he was a consultant on a report - the reference isn't about him, so this again doesn't count. Addhoc 00:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Addhoc. I disagree with the process wonkery going on on this AFD. Consensus can change in less than a month, and this is not an abuse of the "process" at all. Majorly (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources fail to establish any sort of notability as outlined in WP:BIO. Deor 00:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe Dunin's aerospace engineering work to be notable - in particular that he calculated the most fuel efficient manner of launching a geostationary satellite. The sources don't confirm all of this at present but it seems to me a little pointless to delete this article only to probably end up recreating it later when further material is located. This man is not a figment of someone's imagination - he clearly exists, the problem is that the sourcing needs to be improved to more encyclopedic standards. However, the article seems harmless and frankly there are worse ones out there. AfD isn't cleanup. WjBscribe 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been around for more than a year and a half, and because of the contentiousness surrounding it, I feel sure that extraordinary efforts have been made to find reliable sources. That none have been forthcoming suggests that your "when further material is located" is oversanguine to say the least. Deor 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think now would be an excellent time to find further material. Tim Vickers 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Fails most notability points therefore shouldn't be here. — E ^talk_BAG 00:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most rational explanation for the failure to produce sources by this time is that they don't exist. Waiting for them to be produced is thus an inherently indefinite enterprise.Proabivouac 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think relisting is acceptable considering that the last one closed with no consensus, and that extra work has been put into determining the importance of the satellite claim in the meantime (in particular, Talk:Stanley Dunin#Notability of spacecraft guidance work). Even if the "calculated the most efficient..." part can be sourced and re-added, it doesn't appear to be something which has been recognized as a significant contribution, and on current evidence it sounds more like something that he was asked to do as part of the team rather than an important theoretical breakthrough (i.e. an implementation detail that any such project would sort out, as opposed to some pressing theoretical problem that had the field's finest minds stumped). Thomjakobsen 01:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the individual is a notable recipient of the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal and has sourcing to that effect. Yamaguchi先生 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaguchi先生 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Wow, that would be an undisputable reason to keep. However, I am afraid you misunderstood that statement. Harold Rosen received the IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal for that work (1982). IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Recipients --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 02:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that sentence to avoid confusion. Tim Vickers 02:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working for someone who received a notable award is not notability. In general when I see such a claim in an article I start looking more closely at other claims, as it's a very telling bit of puffery. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The life of this individual is not covered by reliable, independent, available secondary sources. The article thus fails to meet the notability criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. (sdsds - talk) 04:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once again. Article has improved since last afd, even the nominator says so... clear proof of nominators keep listing til I get it deleted mentality. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator did not state that the article has improved per se, but that original research had been removed. Naturally, that's an improvement, but one which also lays bare the fact that no reliable source attests to Mr. Dunin's notability.Proabivouac 06:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - even more clearly so now that the OR and non verifiable information has been removed. •CHILLDOUBT• 09:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the article has improved since the empty sources and the roundabout references to Elonka Dunin have been removed, that still doesn't make this person historically notable. Was this article here just because of Elonka Dunin? Will we remember this person in 100 years? Mindraker 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WJBscribe. I also completely agree that this is abuse of AfD. Tim Q. Wells 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so trying to form a concensus is an abuse? --Slarti (19 92) 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to form a delete "concensus" over and over again like this abuse. Tim Q. Wells 23:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other two discussions ended with no concensus (which defaults to keep). I bet if it defaulted to delete you would actually want this discussion. But, of course, defaulting to delete would be absurd so here we are to actually form a concensus. --Slartibartfast1992 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. The abuse has been in the protection of this and related spam. 72.106.196.73 23:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.106.196.73 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Preceding comment added by user:Disavian.[reply]

Comment - I am traveling, always edit anonymously, and what business of yours is it to purport to tag comments in any case? 72.106.196.73 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because anonymous contributors don't typically get any say at AFD. If you wish your input to be considered for AFD, please consider signing up for an account, it only takes a few minutes. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Their contributing... CO 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the fear is that anonymous IP voters probably will lead to sock-puppeting [1], instead of constructive criticism. I'm not accusing 72.106.196.73 of doing this, but you can easily see how it can be done. Perhaps this article could be boiled down and merged with Elonka Dunin's article, avoiding the whole deletion process? Mindraker 02:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Elonka Dunin's article is the appropriate place for this information. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an idea. I'm quite suspicious of this article being here, for the only reason it might be here is the link to Elonka's claim to royalty -- see: this link surprise, the second sentence is that he is a "Count" -- and it references, surprise, surprise, Elonka's personal web page. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. Mindraker 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a little bit like a personal attack on User:Elonka. Tisk tisk. Also, that link appears to be a mirror wiki; you're just citing an older version of the article in question. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was being critical, yes. I'm working on the Dunin disambiguation page and the whole issue of royalty comes into question: see the old version of the page here and the link cited here. It's not the first time that people have used Wikipedia to make claims to royalty, you know. Mindraker 17:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I came across something similar to Dunin (surname) recently: Griffin (surname). I was somewhat surprised to see such a thorough article about a surname. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although I have some vague reservations about bringing this back to AfD so soon). The claims to notability made in the article when it was nominated for deletion a month ago were largely debunked over the course of that AfD. I think that shows some value in nominating borderline notable articles for deletion, many of them appear notable because the authors of the articles have puffed them up with over-reaching claims. The article last nominated for deletion claimed achievements for Stanley Dunin more correctly attributed to other people. With those spurious claims now removed from the article, it clearly fails to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Stanley Dunin was a member of a team that put up a satellite, his role and contributions were such that his name does not appear in NASA histories like this, I see no grounds for a claim of notability. Pete.Hurd 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a related note to this discussion, I consider the rarity of engineers on Wikipedia an example of our systemic bias, even though systemic bias is typically portrayed as being overly western and/or academic. I also believe that a month is too soon to hold another deletion discussion, and that there should be a guideline (not a policy) somewhere about how long you should wait before trying again. There's probably already an essay about it somewhere in project space. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone was lamenting the scarcity of poets (while defending a NN poet), so I told them to start with Category:Poetry awards and mine for redlinks. Category:Science and engineering awards doesn't have as many as you think (most of the major prizes have 100% bluelinks, which isn't true for poetry) but it does have some. Best start there, with the engineers that other engineers have recognized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also all the members of the National Academy of Engineering. Several hundred, and almost none have a WP page. Membership in the US National academies is generally considered a certain indication of notabilityDGG (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio 11:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am normally very much opposed to rapidly repeated AfDs, but the previous one was no consensus, not keep, and was no consensus in good part because of extraneous factors such as family relationships. Read it--I consider it a travesty. See Dhartung's comments there and here, which I fully support. See what I said there about the nature of the references used then. The AIAA paper that remains cited in the article has him as a junior author--and it has been cited only 7 times in the whole period since 1962. DGG (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Established after much ado as non-notable. Brunon ia 14:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its a damn shame that it took three separate nominations to finally get to the bottom of this, but there is no doubt in my mind that this calculated puff piece was disguised to cheat our notability guidelines. I think good faith has been exhausted here, unfortunately. Burntsauce 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Slarti (19 92) 22:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I support the work of Elonka Dunin, and it is really obvious (to me) that some folks on Wikipedia really have it out for her, but on this one article I have to agree, the subject fails the relevant guidelines for inclusion. RFerreira 06:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps some do have it out for her. Speaking for myself, I had no problem with User:Elonka (and supported her most recent RfA) until I witnessed - and was ultimately myself the victim of - the hardball tactics to which she resorted to defend this vanity series. Several administrators have carried her water, proxying for her original research and/or threatening, megablocking and irrevocably violating the privacy of users who've attempted to scrutinize these articles. These articles must go for many reasons, but another very good one is to protect editors who mean only to uphold our sourcing policies from the vindictive actions of their creator and her IRC-based allies.Proabivouac 06:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't see notability here, at least not in anyway that is verifiable with reliable sources. Sarah 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator and Burntsauce. No offense to anyone but nothing notable here, sorry. Thats just how it is. If its deleted and if anyone finds any non-trivial reliable sources on this, feel free to recreate. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (withdrawn for Elonka. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Delete (as article creator). Life's too short to deal with griefers, let's just delete. Back when I was a new editor in early 2006, I created this article about my father in good faith, about an individual that I felt meets WP:BIO. He was born to Polish nobility, was involved with the launch of a historic satellite, and helped with the cracking of a famous code. After I created this article, per Wikipedia guidelines I asked an uninvolved editor to review it, and they gave it a thumbs up. Now, if I would have just created the article and then never edited Wikipedia after that, it probably never would have been a problem. But because I am an active Wikipedia editor, it seems that some other editors are using this article about my father as a constant target as a way to seek revenge against me for other disagreements on Wikipedia. I've seen editors come in and systematically dismantle the article, removing a sentence here, a paragraph there (yes, even removing sourced information) until they get it down to a stub, and nominate it for deletion again. My 70-year-old father (who really has led a remarkable life and has already overcome incredible odds at even surviving the chaos of World War II) truly doesn't deserve this kind of constant harassment. And to be honest, the information about him doesn't have to be on Wikipedia. I've already got the information in multiple other places on my elonka.com website. If Wikipedia wants to "lose" the data, well, fine, it's Wikipedia's loss (shrug). Let's leave my dad in peace, delete this article, and just move on. --Elonka 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, removing original research isn't "harassment." Threatening other editors for upholding the sourcing policies, using back channels to get them blocked and their privacy irrevocably violated…that's harassment. Such machinations have de facto banned me from most of the spaces to which I used to productively contribute, brought Matt57 one step away from a formal ban, all to protect these articles from scrutiny. Fact is, Matt57 was right. Many other people are seeing that now. This article will surely be deleted, and if policy is to be upheld, without reference to personal alliances and favoritism, more will follow. But there's nothing you can do, is there, to undo what your IRC friends did to me.Proabivouac 01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't about one of the many editors of this article or any past Wikidrama, it is about whether or not this article meets the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Please do not allow this discussion to move off topic. Tim Vickers 02:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Elonka, please be assured again, this is not about you or revenge or anything, its about: whether the article meets notability criteria. Almost everyone here has said delete in this pretty much extensive discussion and given their reasons especially the nom who laid it out. None of these people had any 'griefing' to do or wanted to take revenge on you. Just for you, I'll withdraw my vote. Please see the opinions of uninvolved editors. I hope you'll be able to see all of this impartially. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen much less notable articles that has been kept based on the argument that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia". If there is any original research there that Elonka does not verify them, we should keep them out. Many of the humanities majors and their publications are really working based on trust and assumption of good faith on the part of those who collect the data. I haven't checked all the sources closely; others can do. I myself, in my vote, have gone beyond the letter of wikipedia to its spirit. Let's separate this discussion from Proabivouac's case or Matt's case. --Aminz 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Elonka and Sarah. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD should not have been re-listed but rather closed on its original nomination page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-noteworthy - also, let's watch the close of this Afd to ensure it reflects policy and indeed consensus this time - no shenanigans. And, Ms. Dunin, your comments above are very touching but at odds with this quote..."Please don't assume that I made this page because I actually like my father" [[2]]. I for one don't even know you, but this gentlemen (who seems very nice and must be quite capable) doesn't meet notability guidelines. A cursory review of your editing shows that you know these policies well. Your remonstration above can be reversed: would you have created this page if the subject was not your dad? I think not. 75.224.244.206 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) — User:75.224.244.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberettia[edit]

No such country: Ethiopia & Syria are not adjacent countries. The link does not mention "Liberetta"; perhaps the original author meant Eritrea? Otherwise, this is a hoax. This is the only article the original author created, who has not contributed to Wikipedia since. llywrch 23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mish-mash. Among other things aside from the unverifiability, Afar is not a city. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a clear hoax. --Oakshade 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who knows, maybe five years of Wikipedians forgot about this one country.... Dylan 03:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Afar is a region in Ethopia, not a city; not adjacent to Syria; 0 relevant Ghits - hoaxaliscious. SkierRMH 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No such country. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ Mindraker 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one item from the list to B-52 Stratofortress. There are two other entries on the list that could also be merged, but I am not sure where to merge them to. --Core desat 05:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B-52 Stratofortress trivia[edit]

The title alone tells us this is WP:TRIVIA. Most of the information on here plays out like an "I spy a B52" game. None of it is in anyway academic or notable. Second nomination Bulldog123 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A nice idea in having it, but if the main article is too long, trim it - don't shift it elsewhere. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 23:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the main article. A number of these things are well-known lore (e.g. "BUFF"), others are specs (fuel gallons), others are of marginal importance (nose-down attitude), others are easily discarded (crash info, borderline memorial). If the main article is too long, split it according to WP:SS, and have the courage to cull. --Dhartung | Talk 00:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we keep it, some other self-important deletionist will nominate it again, and we'll be doing this in perpetuity. PS, if you don't like the title, rename it, but this article was much more than just trivia. Not that the facts matter in a Trivia AFD, or we would have a lot less of these frivolous AFDs to contend with. - BillCJ 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete then just move the actual "good trivia" like that BUFF stuffs in the main article ForeverDEAD 00:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and merge anything non-trivial to the main article. Crazysuit 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with all trivia most of this can easily be written into the main article and a few things can go. 01:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
Comment to authors... if ONLY you had listened to the suggestions made in the last debate, when everyone was rooting for you. This is more history than trivia, but the trivia label makes it seem frivolous. Bring it in for a landing before you get too many more hits. Mandsford 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the referenced information specific to the aircraft back into the main article, if it is not already there, then purge the three fluffy bullets at the end of the miscellanea. — RJH (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deleting because it is short and sourced enough to be part of the main article and because it passed a discussion just a few months ago. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should not be such articles. Technical facts presented in coherent form belong to main article. Tribia belong to garbage bin. Mukadderat 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maori +separatist[edit]

I have no idea what this article is about but I am fairly certain that it does not belong on Wikipedia. (possibly relevent polcies and guidelines : WP:NN, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT) Guest9999 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Maybe it's code? Bulldog123 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this looks like original research & unless it can be referenced fast it has to go--Cailil ^talk 23:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not totally original research but certainly a bit of a personal essay. If it was better named should be a redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#New_Zealand --Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- ...or better yet, to Tino rangatiratanga. Not with this title, though, so delete. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay. I am, however, creating Maori separatist as a redirect to Maori protest movement, of which separatism plays a role --Dhartung | Talk 00:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR.-gadfium 01:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- would redirect to Maori protest movement as recommended above, except with the + sign, it's not worth keeping. Dylan 03:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Boils down to someone's racial generalization that Maoris divide the world into two groups of people... Maori and non-Maori (Pakeha). Author apparently thinks that the concept is unique to Maori people. I suppose the white residents of New Zealand would never do something like that. Mandsford 17:33, 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 and redirect to MAME. --Core desat 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Giles[edit]

Placing for deletion because this person is not independently notable according to WP:BIO guidelines, and the article about the subject arguably WP:BLP due to a lack of reliable third party sources. Do not be fooled by the two references cited in the article -- one is a primary source, a link to a website operated by the subject, and the second is a lawsuit between Sony and a former employer.

To recap: there are no reliable third party sources published about this person, period. My motion is to delete. Burntsauce 22:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to be verifiable. No news articles to be found and I cannot see any assertion of significant personal notability that would attract others to write about him. Certainly fails the requirements of biographical notability as the article stands - Peripitus (Talk) 00:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to MAME, the project for which he's best known. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MAME. There doesn't seem to be anything worth merging, as there's no independent sourcing and none of it is particularly relevant to that article. Thomjakobsen 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a redirect to MAME for reasons mentioned. The article gives off the look and feel of an online resume and lacks non-trivial sources about the subject. Yamaguchi先生 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above; sources aren't about him but about the project. No apparently relevant Ghits to prove notability. SkierRMH 17:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. verifiability problem. Mukadderat 01:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech in popular culture[edit]

Trivial mentions of Georgia Tech in various media. This could easily be done for all schools. No reason why Georgia Tech should be treated special here, else it be fancruft. Note that this is the second nomination. Bulldog123 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indiscriminate information and a list of loosely associated topics. In The Devil's Advocate Pacino tells Reeves that one of the interns on their law firm goes to Georgia Tech. And in Deliverance a car license plate reads "Georgia Tech." Indiscriminate trivia, list the few notable ones in Georgia Tech. Crazysuit 00:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of every time someone mentioned a school in a movie is not worth an article. Ridernyc 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reluctantly I said it the last time too, even if it is my alma mater. I don't see much change. But we have to find a place for the Marilyn Monroe picture, dammit! Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can and should be done for all major schools where there is enough material. There is here. Six major books, a dozen major movies. Remove the one or two minor one. There's no justification for removing an article because some of the content is unnotable, that's an editing question. On the other hand, if we did want to have a 200,000 article WP, that would be a useful criterion:2 dubious sentences = delete. DGG (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete any article or section that ends in "in popular culture" Man It's So Loud In Here 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every IPC article is bad, though this is an example of why such articles are hated so much. This one is both rambling AND a wreck. It's every trivial mention of Georgia Tech, including (a) a "Georgia Tech notebook" seen on screen (b) Al Pacino mentions that someone went to Tech (c) license plate in Deliverance (d) characters in certain novels were said to have gone to Tech (e) Marilyn Monroe and Brooke Shields wore Tech outfit; etc. Mandsford 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passed an earlier discussion with a keep, but two months ago. Also, the article helps demonstrate the influence of Georgia Tech on popular culture. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I've stated to you before: things can be in AFD more than once. This isn't a real reason to keep something. Consensus can change. RobJ1981 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Article is well-referenced. Complaints of trivial entries sound more like a content dispute. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial dumping ground. A prose should be on the Georgia Tech article, and leave it at that. RobJ1981 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantitative Isomorphic Multichannel Marketing Analysis[edit]

Does not make clear the difference between this and data mining. No evidence that this is a widespread term. No Ghits for "Quantitative Isomorphic Multichannel Marketing Analysis". Alksub 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears to be a spam vehicle for the company given as reference links. I've removed the external links as there is no mention of this concept at that site, and so they add nothing to the article. No search hits, no references, just a lot of vague marketspeak and a title formed by squishing five buzzwords together. The single-purpose account behind the article's creation forgot to log back in for the second round of editing, and their IP resolves to Ashburn, Virginia — very close to Reston, Virginia, where the upperquadrant.com domain registrant is located. Coincidence? Or is this marketing company just trying to write a really great article for free? Thomjakobsen 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expeditiously redesignate into a demonstrably less visible state - Either spam, completely made up or sourced from a single unverifyable place that reads far too much Dilbert. - Peripitus (Talk) 00:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crap article, per nom. It's poorly written, unreferenced and likely just a marketing vehicle. Majoreditor 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without the spam link it's just unverifiable gobbeldygook (no insult to turkeys or goblins intended). SkierRMH 17:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neogolism. --Gavin Collins 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete just yet -- please review the rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanfromVA (talk • contribs) 21:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article still has no reliable sources and is unverifiable. Thomjakobsen 22:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. --Core desat 05:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clan (Warriors)[edit]

Doesn't seem notable, seems like fancruft, lacks sources Pilotbob 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This would be better with sources, and isn't fancruft. With a few in-text citations, it would be better. Crowstar^{Crow callsTalon Marks} 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Crowstar, and I vote to keep the article. It doesn't contain fancruft. It contains vital information on the universe of that series... Though, yes, I suppose citing sources would be better, but the article doesn't need to be deleted. It just needs some work. TakaraLioness 23:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with them both I think we should keep it because the article isn't fancruft...If you need sorces I could surely find them I found them once before and I could find them again.VampiricCat 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — VampiricCat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per the arguments used at deletions for Bits of the Exalted series and List of ancient jedi... Falls into Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#PLOT as an unsourceable plot summary that only has in-world context. Not only is the article unsourced to reliable places but appears to be unsourceable. I cannot find, and doubt there is, any third-party writing about the clans inside Warriors (novel series). At best it should attract a small paragraph in the book series article (if even that can be sourced) - Peripitus (Talk) 00:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not fan site. No independent notability. --S.dedalus 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is so badly written I have trouble figuring out what it is. Seems to just be character summaries with no real world notability. If this is saved it needs to be massively rewritten.Ridernyc 01:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is complete and utter crap. We've had this page for over a year... Nothing is wrong with it. It's not fancruft -it very clearly explains what the Warriors universe is like for those interested or confused by something in the books. And FYI, we HAVE references! Just look at the frickin' bottom of the page. We just don't cite every little thing... But, if you want that done, I'd do it. But don't nominate it for deletion just because of that - especially when you have no real knowledge of what the page is. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, I think you are being far too extreme here. If you think something is wrong, give us time to fix it, don't be an ass and jump strait to deletion. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 03:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is not that the article is poor but that the subject is inherently unencyclopediac. It is not verifyable to third-party reliable sources...only to sources from within. If there are no significant third-parties writing directly about the subject then no amount of work can save the article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or transwiki to a fan wiki, if they even want it. Incoherency can be solved by editing, but a lack of out-of-universe reliable source material cannot, and I see no indication that substantial amounts of such source material exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Shinigami (Bleach) article fancruft? No. Is the Clan (Warriors) page fancruft? No. They both provide factual information about their respective universes - they are exactly the same in that respect, why is this one being put up for deletion, though? And I don't get why you continue pressing that these do not have sources - THEY DO! Just look at the bottom under "references." Every single novel of the Warriors series acted as a reference for this page! If you want specific page numbers, this can easily be done. All I'm saying is - yes, we CAN add in "better" sources. Give us a few weeks to do that rather than just deleting the page! --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 11:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of thousands of popular culture articles on wikipedia. I'm not fond of the category, but the solution is not to delete individual articles, where people have spent hours and hours to get things right. It would make more sense to try to get consensus to create a guideline to disallow this kinds of articles altogether. But even if such a guideline was approved, some respect for all the work people have spent on these articles is needed, and the information should be moved elsewhere - not deleted. Mlewan 13:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: from the other keep comments, it seems clear that the page is actually both useful and used by people. To me that is a pretty good criterion to keep the page. It is certainly possible to improve it - a lot, but it serves a purpose. Mlewan 04:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USEFUL#It_is_useful. Metros 10:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that usefulness on its own is not a sufficient argument to keep the article. Neither is the fact that people spent a lot of time on it. Neither that there are thousands of other articles with similar content. And so on. However, to make an overall judgement it would be silly to completely ignore those factors. Mlewan 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And what is this article about? Unsalvageable; no sources, incoherent, in-universe, no notability, fancruft, the list goes on. Recreate it if you want to make it coherent and take the time to source, but the current version belongs in the wastebasket. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The other Warriors pages are about the characters and the books themselves. What else are we supposed to do for confused fans? Go to each of them individually and explain it? This has many articles that would not fit onto any other page. Seriously, I can't see what's wrong with it. Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also wanted to add, none of it--none, zip, zero--is fancruft. Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 23:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this fancruft? It is totally logical and explains the geography, cats, customs, history, and etc. of the Clans in the series Warriors. This needs to stay and it shouldn't be deleted.

-CloudWind

PS: I agree with whoever said we should have time to fix it before it is deleted.
- PSS: I've used this article many, MANY time while writing fanfics, and others the same! Trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.204.174 (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 68.2.204.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. This article is very useful. It gives you tons of facts and helpful information for warrior series readers!! And when something when needs work, you let people know and you work at it!!! To think people spent hours and hours on it. And to all the dumbos who said delete...I bet you dont even read the series...This article is PERFECT!!!so if your going to critize it when you dont even read it......DONT READ IT common sense!!!-no offense- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.224.221 (talk • contribs)
- PS- THIS ARTICLE IS NOT FANCRUFT!!! Fruit Salad, a girl who knows what she is doing...jerks71.252.224.221 04:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 71.252.224.221 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This article for it is very informational and can help Warriors readers better understand things, or give them something to do. Also links in the blue print to take them to another article, saving time. Also, might help get people into the series itself out of interest. And may show things Warriors readers might not know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.99.72 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.37.99.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep!! This article is not any sort of fancraft. seriously, it's helpful info that can be used for further understanding of the warriors novels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.134.43 (talk) 02:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 72.146.134.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm a member of the Delete clan. 100% in-universe fancruft. Clarityfiend 03:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is awesome. We've worked really hard on it, and would hate to see it deleted and do it all over again. This article really helps all warrior fans and people who wants to get into warrios. DON NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE!!PLEEZ!Cloud Salad 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)Cloud Salad — Cloud Salad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to closing admin See This ANI thread regarding admitted sockpuppetry by this user. One of the earlier IP !votes is also added by this user. Metros 14:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you delete this then you might as well delete the Harry Potter page. Just because the Warriors series is less popular doesn't mean you have to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.214.28 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely in-universe fancruft. east.718 at 09:06, 10/21/2007
Delete Not just in-universe fancruft, also completely lacking any independent sources whatsoever. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure fancruft. Hut 8.5 12:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How the holy crap is any of this fancruft? The allegiances are as they stand as of the books; all of the ceremonies have been used in the books; all the medicine cat herbs have been explained in the books (and more outright in Secrets of the Clans); the history of the Clans is in the books; the hierarchy is in the books; the mythology is in the books. Do you think the team of Warriors editors who do so much to keep the characters and other Warriors sections so free of speculation would let this whole article slip? All of us have read the books and we can all assure that, as far as Warriors is concerned, everything is fact. You may see it as useless and in-universe, but to a Warriors fan it makes perfect sense. Want to look up a ceremony for a fanfic? Check. Writing a list of medicine cat herbs? Check. Want to determine exactly how the hierarchy ladder goes? Check. Also to add, if this is deleted, where would we put it? Unless we keep this page, a whole mass of useFUL information will go to waste. Warriors fans who might need to look something up would be lost. Sincerely, Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lakestorm, all your comments here are exactly how this is "fancruft" as everyone else has termed it. Wikipedia is not a repository of information that fans can reference in order to write their fan fictions. It's information for everyone, everywhere. The highest policies of Wikipedia are based on sourcing from independent sources, not sources that are the book or the author. Just because they're explained in the book doesn't mean it's sourced by our standards. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent, reliable sources to show how this article's topic exists outside the fan world of the books. The comments by those !voting keep are proving the point that this article only really exists to provide information for fans to write their fan fictions. This kind of information is appropriate for a fan website, but not for Wikipedia. Metros 14:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep provisionally. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I read some of the information referenced on this page regarding Wikipedia's standards, and I think I understand where you are coming from. If I understand correctly, you are saying that articles which merely describe the content of a book without any external connections aren't acceptable. So if there were sourced discussion of the social impact of the Warriors clans, for example, would that be acceptable? Because I think that with some work, information could be added describing how the concept of Warrior clans has become a social phenomenon that extends beyond the books. I don't know how much third party writing has been done on the subject, but it would help if you could provide the editors of this article time to research and provide that information, rather than automatically deleting it. I wrote an article which was published in an electronic children's literature journal back in March that may help in a small way, although much more research will be needed: http://www.theedgeoftheforest.com/archive/2007/apr/feature.shtml SheilaRuth 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has had a lot of time to be fixed. It's been up for a ear as it is so there's been plenty of time to clean it up. As for your source, it has little to no relevance to the topic at hand. Your source is just a summary of the books it seems. On top of that, you shouldn't be adding sources to articles that you yourself wrote. Metros 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually not adding my article as a source, since I'm not offering to edit the topic myself, just suggesting it as one possible article that someone could use in a small way. And while I wrote it, it was published by an independent third party. It's true that part of it is a summary of the books, but part of it discusses the social impact of the books, which if I understand falls under the definition of external, rather than internal. I've been an observer of this phenomenon for a couple of years, and have some expertise on it. As for the fact that it's been up for a year, I don't believe that the editors of this article have understood the problems with it sufficiently to fix them. I'm suggesting that with some guidance, they could do better. While I don't have the time to edit it myself, I'll be glad to offer the editors some guidance on bringing it into spec if you give them more time. SheilaRuth 19:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ya, you're seeing me as Spottedfire, but it's really Starsight. I sometimes try to keep Wikipedia content in line, and I know that many people work hard to keep this forum as true as possible. Like someone already said, if you delete this topic, you may as well delete every other fantasy book topic on Wikipedia. There's no point in keeping them if this one goes. And may I remind you that Warriors is nearly as popular as Harry Potter, if not as heard of. Spottedfire 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are the external sources for this though? It's great that you all say it's true and that you worked so hard on it, but aside from being a place for you all to use as a guideline to help you write fan fiction, where are the answers to the other issues being raised in this AFD about external sources? Metros 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book series. What else are we supposed to do? Aside from reviews--which don't add to this page--author chats, and tours, we don't have anything that we can use as reference.

If you delete this page, as Spottedfire said, you may as well delete every other book article on Wikipedia. Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm Lakestorm 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems fairly obvious (not least from this http://wandsandworlds.com/community/node/1998) that this Wikipedia page is being used as an extension of fan sites. The Warriors series may be notable, but this list is not useful to anyone other than, possibly, a fan of the books. That’s almost the definition of fancruft. Also that fact that “many editors have worked hard on this article” above, has zero bearing on whether this article should be deleted. --S.dedalus 20:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since people are so passionate about this I highly recommend they start a warriors wiki. Rather then fight a losing battle her make something out of what you have.Ridernyc 20:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do very much believe that some people, Metros in particular, are not even trying to understand what this article is about, and are just assuming what it is based on what others said. (based on this edit). It is not just "about a group of cats." The groups of cats in the Warriors universe have complex societies, and this page is meant to explain those. ~~I bring up Shinigami (Bleach) again. It has nothing but sources from the manga itself, and yet its status as an article isn't being contested. Why, though? It has the exact same purpose as this~~ (My god, are you serious? That was put up for deletion too? Pilotbob, it is my personal opinion that you need to stop with this deletion rampage, and actually bother to read articles and understand their purpose.) The Clan (Warriors) page is meant to explain the society of a fictional universe. The Clan (Warriors) page is not just a reference guide for fanfics, and therefore fancruft, but is meant to be an informative article about the fictional universe and its key points. As for the person who said we did have time to fix it - That is rather preposterous, seeing as we were never told anything was wrong. ;-) --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 21:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also add that, as per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is in fact an acceptable source for articles about that work of fiction. And I'll repeat once more that we have no lack of those. --~|ET|~(^{Talk|Contribs}) 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- "It is not just 'about a group of cats.' Oh really? From the first sentence of the article: "In the fictional series of Warriors, there are four groups of cats, called Clans". So yes, it is about groups of cats. It is not about medicines. Metros 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yeah it is. It's about diseases that affect those Clans, that the medicine cats (part of the Clans) have to help the Clans survive. I told you, we can expand it to include all the Warriors things, not just the Clans. >.> Lakestorm 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't belong in an article titled "Clans." This article is not to be about ALL things Warriors. It's to be about clans in the series. Metros 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'll make a new article just for that. v.v Lakestorm 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that just because you have no real understanding about what an article is truly about, it needs to be automatically deleted. Just because it's from a book series doesn't mean it has to be totally fancruft. It may be fiction, but that doesn't mean it's all false, and fan work. It even says at the top of the page that is is a fictional series.

It does not just help people with fan fiction. If somebody is confused about something in the books, or even wants to start reading, they can come to this--or any of the Warriors pages--and get an answer.

Maybe you think it's pointless because it's fiction. Fine. You think that. I might add that, if you like Harry Potter, then you won't think the Harry Potter articles are pointless, just as Warriors fans don't think Warriors articles are pointless. Sincerely, Lakestorm 22:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would point all the users voting Keep to the following: WP:LOSE, WP:EFFORT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:ALLORNOTHING. Most of the arguments being made in support seem to fall under one or more of these categories. GlassCobra 02:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again I love seeing people who have passion and I love people who want to do something with all the energy they. However this is not the place. Thr proper place is http://www.wikia.com/ where you can start your own wiki and build the worlds largest warriors site. Just sorry wikipedia is not the place for this. Ridernyc 04:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually there is already a warriors wiki http://warriors.wikia.com/. All this information is already there and I'm sure the people posting in this debate already knew this. Ridernyc 04:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! No, I was not aware of it, and it does open for the possibility to move the article content over there, I suppose. However, I stick to my keep vote. For your assumption of what we already knew, I knew absolutely nothing about the Warriors, the Clan or any Warrior Wikis. I had never heard of them before, and I have seen nothing that would tempt me to read any of the books. It is a category of literature I do not like at all. However, I do respect that other people may like it.

By the way, I realise that this page is now protected so only Wikipedia authors can edit it. Wikipedia readers have no say. I am not sure I consider that fair in this kind of discussion. Mlewan 05:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair because this AFD is being spammed on forums by users in order to garner more support by people. This is wholly inappropriate and creates an unfair AFD. Metros 10:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not perceived that there was a flood of spam here. If people are informed that they can participate and they have an interest, they should be allowed to do so. There is nothing unfair about coming with new arguments. As we all know, this is not a vote. The semi-protection prevents people from coming with arguments, which could sway the debate. However, if all of them just say "keep my page!" or "kick that page out!", the decision taker is clearly free to ignore all of them. Mlewan 13:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metros, it's not your place to insult me and get mad at me for asking for help, and I refuse to regret what I have done. It's not spam, as you say it is. We want to save the page. And at the time I ddidn't realize it wasn't a majority vote. Move on with your life and stop mooning over it. What does it matter to you--and to all the others who says "Delete"--if it is deleted? Don't come look at it. The Warriors fans want it. You don't. You don't read Warriors. What does it matter to you if it is deleted if you don't even need it?

By the way, I'm not afraid of standing up to an administrator. Ban me if you will, just stop talking about that post. That's all I care about right now--that and keeping the page.

Also, I don't give a care what you think of me. I just want you to stop bringing up that post. Lakestorm 20:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Wikipedia is about things, based to real sources, not on fictiojnal sources. Mukadderat 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I've been here for several years and never seen us make that distinction. As it happens, there's a quote that seems quite insightful: "Verifiability and reliability is about having your information sourced to accurate publications, there is no source in existence more accurate than the original work for information about the fiction it contains. As regards in universe information, the use of third party sources is not only nonsensical but harmful, as it will lead to the inclusion of information sourced to things like inaccurate third-party reviews." --Kizor 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandahl 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Student Association[edit]

Delete. High school clubs would generally seem to be non-notable. Previously tagged for deletion per WP:CSD#A7 but now attempts to establish notability, so probably needs an AFD. Hawaiian717 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really even possibly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Dylan 03:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High school clubs without references, no 3rd party coverage or relevant Ghits to the same. SkierRMH 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... although I -will- miss having the information about the ice cream social and Valentine's dance on Wikipedia ;) Mindraker 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian American actors[edit]

To start off, "Italian American actors are notable, therefore we should keep this list" is too simplistic a rationale, especially when considering the bigger picture. Italian Americans as actors can be notable, for many different reasons, ranging from the fact that a huge staple of American culture is the so-called "mafia movie" and frequently (though not always) Italian Americans are cast in those roles to the fact that Italian-Americans are often seen as "sex symbols" in American media. However, lists such as this destroy the notion of why it is notable to be an Italian American actor, because it lumps together EVERYONE who could peripherally be considered "Italian American" and an actor. 90% of the people on this list are in no way notable because they are Italian American actors. Perhaps James Gandolfini of The Sopranos fame could be considered an Italian American actor but why should Dan Castellaneta who voices Homer Simpson. For anyone who is worthy of being considered an Italian American actor there exists the Culture section of Italian Americans. In fact, Italian American Culture would make a good article too. However, lists like this end up being "non-notable cross-categorizations" for over half of their entries. Bulldog123 22:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an obviously notable cross-categorization (where, say, Italian-American civil engineers would not be). Actors' ethnicity often plays into the roles they get and they are often called out for representing the community properly or improperly. Referenced and somewhat categorized (although decades are a fairly sloppy approach, most careers span more than one), so meets WP:LIST. --Dhartung | Talk 00:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so obvious, why not mention what makes it so notable for all listees? Do they all play Italian characters? Is there a specific Italian-American brand of acting? I honestly want to know what makes it so unflinchingly notable. Bulldog123 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Artists of all sorts are the people for whom these categories make the most sense. And Bulldog is looking for a List of Actors who Play Italian-American roles, but that would be a separate list. Might be a good idea, too. DGG (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not looking for List of actors who play Italian-American roles, which would be a performer by performance listing, and is generally avoided (and deleted as categories). I'm looking for any legitimate relationship between having parents or grandparents who were born in Italy and being an American actor. I see none except what I mentioned, and that applies to no more than 25% of listees. Bulldog123 03:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This categorization is notable enough for there to be a Guild of Italian American Actors which publishes an Italian American Players Directory. Problems with people adding non-notable people or "he's 1/16th Italian and he was an extra in a film" can be addressed by editing, rather than deleting the whole list. DHowell 21:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but my example still holds. Dan Castellaneta supposedly isn't 1/16th Italian, and so why is his Italian Americanness related to his acting? Bulldog123 23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable categorization, and editor proposing deletion is well known for his/her profusion of WP:POINT nominations without merit. Badagnani 00:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This coming from someone who suggested banning an admin for closing an AfD to the opposite of his liking. Bulldog123 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Nomination Withdrawn. Icestorm815 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbage[edit]

No notability asserted. Miremare 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Miremare 22:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite looking decidedly unpromising, I found a Game Tunnel review, GameSpot list PC Zone UK as having reviewed it (!?!) and there's a GamaSutra article about the game, it's in the Independent Game Festival 2007. There's 3 things here - 1) the game itself, 2) the website and 3) the developer's lack of experience in developing games and the broader discussion about indie developers. There's various other sources kicking about which may or may not be usable/up to this standard, but I'm pretty sure there's enough for the article about the game (with the level information chopped, blegh).Someone another 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the massive laundry list of pop-culture references. Someone another 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, possible notability... However, ign's claim may be wrong, as a search on the official PC Zone site [3] yields no results. Unfortunately, no one on the Magazine project has that issue, so we're a bit stuck with that. Gamasutra is certainly reliable, but I'm not sure about gametunnel.com, as it seems to be a site that specifically covers independent games. Whether that's an issue or not I'm not sure, but it seems that any "popular" independent game is going to be featured there whether or not it's covered by the mainstream gaming press. What do you reckon on that? Miremare 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Zone review is also listed at GameRankings, with a score of 71%. The game author writes for the magazine sometimes so the review was probably placed as a favour (though it wasn't given a silly score of 98% or whatever, so I count that as perfectly OK for reliability). Game Tunnel does just review indie games, but I'm quite happy that their reviews are reliable and that a review from them provides some notability. It is an actual review rather than a selling piece, and GT does have reviewing standards overseen by the webmaster. If nothing else the PC Zone score can be cited to gamerankings and the GT review can also be used to write about the game's reception, and the development section can be written with gama sutra and self-references.Someone another 10:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending investigation into the magazine issue. Unavailability of a certain source to Wikipedia editors at a certain time does not tell us anything about notability. The other sources look good. User:Krator (t c) 20:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dan Marshall did a series of development diaries for PC Zone. Gamasutra interview him about his entrance into the 2007 IGF competition, but the game wasn't shortlisted for any awards.[4] - hahnch e n 18:43, 22 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, John254 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Concur with previous comments about magazine and gaming media-in-general coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 16:09 24 October 2007 (GMT)
Weak keep. It's at least somewhat notable as per above (direct reference to the PC Zone UK issue would be nice though), and after shortening the introduction and adding a section about its development (the fact it was created by only one person seems to be the most notable feature), I can see an adequate encyclopedic article. --Allefant 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn sorry, this escaped my watchlist somehow. Anyway, PC Zone seems to have featured it on more than one occasion, and there's the other web sources, which Someone another says are likely reliable, so away with this AfD. It would still be nice to see the PC Zone coverage referenced in the article though if anyone can do this. Miremare 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Strait Regional School Board. --Core desat 05:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Breton Highlands Education Centre/Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cape Breton Highlands Education Centre/Academy

Contested PROD. Schools don't ever seem to be deleted under WP:CSD. So here we are. This article has no assertion of notability whatsoever, other than the fact that it is there. No reason to keep. Rjd0060 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing but OR. NN School Toddstreat1 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article at Strait Regional School Board per WP:LOCAL. Yamaguchi先生 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are alternatives to both CSD and AfD for articles like this: a redirect can be done as an editing decision, DGG (talk) 05:01, 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. W.marsh 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unistructure[edit]

Delete unsourced article about an aparently nn academic building at Bryant U. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a simple google search found this. I'm sure there is more out there. SolidPlaid 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per SolidPlaid. --S.dedalus 00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's only mentioned in passing in most hits on Google News Archive, almost all of them from the Providence Journal or a campus (non-independent) source. It seems worth mentioning in the college article, but most campuses have a multi-use facility of one kind or another. The main thing that made this one unique was that the college had just moved and briefly housed the entire institution. --Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of particular importance on Wikipedia or even to Bryant specifically. Dylan 03:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It seems to be the main structure at the university, and would make a good part of the main article. Using this as the title is a little confusing.DGG (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and largely copyvio of http://web.bryant.edu/virtualtour/Unistructure.htm. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 06:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Main contributor blanked page. Mindraker 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as a copyvio article on a non notable building. Nuttah68 15:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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^♫ 04:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disneymania 6[edit]

Disputed prod. Future album complation that may or may not be a hoax. Be sure to check the history, there's been a lot of stuff added and removed. Strictly procedural for me. UsaSatsui 22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Also check the discussion page. The only information about this album is fan sites so far. It looks like a fan created extrapolation of Disney's past history of releasing these compilations. --NrDg 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy. Recreation of salted DisneyMania 6 with different spelling. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DisneyMania 6 --NrDg 21:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Crystal - only blogs & fan sites so far; could find nothing relevant on the Disney site to prove that its in production at this time. Welcome it back when its officially announced by 'the Mouse'. SkierRMH 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks media coverage Addhoc 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. That cover image should probably be checked for validity as well. - eo 01:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suite Village[edit]

Delete another unsourced article about nn dorms at Bryant U. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 19 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, Core desat 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no assertion of notability that I can see. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Italian Pie[edit]

Article about a restaurant chain with 20+ franchises and zero third-party sources. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Not great, but could be notable [5] [6] --S.dedalus 00:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. I think Wikipedia already has a lot of other articles about small regional restaurant chains like this. When I run across articles for individual restaurants that have no other particular claim of notability (tourist attraction in their own right, etc) I've been prod'ing them, but a franchise with 20+ locations might be big enough to be notable as a business. What we really need is a formal policy on what constitutes notability for restaurants and restaurant chains. Dr.frog 02:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No cogent rationale has been presented why to delete this article. The above argument is persuasive. --Zeamays 01:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Dr Frog, and in the absence of such a policy, I personally think that 20 franchises is more than notable enough. THE KING 13:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep.. There are 50+ articles per google news archives, some of which appear to be significant coverage. These are pay sites so I don't feel like checking them out though. The article needs clean-up and sourcing. Wikidemo 14:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs way more info and sources. What makes this restaurant 'special'? If it's a keep, it's a very weak keep. Mindraker 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Mindraker comment: I created this article just recently, and then some folks immediately wanted to delete it, despite the fact I marked it as a "stub". Since it is a stub, people like Mindraker should be adding to it and improving it, not immediately wanting to delte it. Their passion to delete it immediately suggests some kind of axe is being ground. If not, my apologies. --Zeamays 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cochise County Cavaliers[edit]

Minor league football team with no WP:RSes showing notability. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, semi-pro league is not notable. Corvus cornix 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the league they play in doesn't have an article, it is stretching it for one of the teams in that league to be notable enough. - fchd 12:36, 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 Keep. CitiCat^♫ 04:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Chariandy[edit]

Delete no reliable sources for this BLP article of a nn author and professor, fails WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and his book was on some runner up lists for some prizes but won nothing apparently, not even the lower level ones. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. For one thing, the winners haven't even been announced yet for either award that he's up for. And for two, neither of them are "lower level" awards — they're the two big megaprizes in Canadian literature, such that any writer who makes their shortlist is inherently notable enough for an article. Keep. Bearcat 23:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd not ordinarily support this for the author of a first novel, but the awards are certainly notable. 3 of the other 4 nominees for the GG are very well established writers indeed, so he is right up there at the top. Perhaps the articles on the prizes can be written to be a little more explanatory about the distinction.DGG (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article Governor General's Award already does. But for an award that's been presented annually since 1936, we obviously have to split each year's nominees/winners list out to a separate article rather than listing them all in one giant omnibus article. Bearcat 17:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- you've got to be kidding; a first-time author who gets nominated for the biggest prizes in all of Canadian letters is certainly worthy of note! Besides this, Chariandy is one of the founding editors of Commodore Books, Western Canada's first black-owned, black-run literary press. He is far from being a no-name author; his book launch was covered for television, he is the first author from Arsenal Pulp Press -- Vancouver's main independent publisher -- in years to be included in the Vancouver International Writer's Festival, he is the first Arsenal Pulp to be nominated for the Giller Prize and first to be nominated for the Governor General's award. As a first time author is he nominated for the GG alongside Barbara Gowdy and Michael Ondaatje! I'm willing to bet that the person who nominated this entry for deletion has some personal beef or jealousy issue here; given the outrageous number of self-promoting, useless and plumped-up Wikipedia entries for low-level accomplishers, it seems highly suspect that Chariandy's well-deserved entry gets challenged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.171.160 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable stub. THE KING 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. J 22:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mairi Duncan[edit]

YouTube superstar with no chance at enduring notability. Cap'n Walker 21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite normally not being notable, there are two reliable sources, thus keep. Tiddly-Tom 21:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Corvus cornix. Tiddly-Tom 09:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 21:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "...became famous for falling down a floor hatch" pretty much says it all right there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if WP:BLP1E means anything at all, it's for situations like this one. "In the future, everyone will be famous for 13 seconds." --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Speaking of BLP1E, one of the references leads you to an article called "Celebrities who fall for five minutes of fame". Yamaguchi先生 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the link to Celebrities who fall for five minutes of fame tells it all; BLP1E says it pretty well. SkierRMH 18:04, 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 last time, and for the exact same reaosns which I quote: "As illustrated [..] this article was poorly sourced and solely comprised of negative sourced information on an entity who's notability is disputed within WP:BIO. The subject of the article is only known for a number of posts he made on Usenet groups, which does not make him inherently notable. Most of the references made on the article are to a college newspaper, which cannot be taken as a reliable and unbiased source of information. The book authored by Eric Francis is one source that cannot be ignored, but there are still no multiple, reliable and independent sources available (Discover magazine makes a transitory note on the subject). There are gross violations of WP:BLP on this article and as the largest source of information on the internet we have a lot of responsibilities towards the society and it's members. The article has done nothing but made a mockery of the person. Wikipedia, as it has been circumstantiated in the past, has the capability of adversely and antagonistically affecting lives of individuals. We do not, and should not harm. That is what BLP means. Moreover, it seems from the logs of the page, that the subject of the article does not wish this article to exist either."

The only modification is that some of his supporters now want it to exist as a hagiography. That doesn't cut it either. I am restoring the redirect. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes Plutonium[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has a long and convoluted history of which I'm mostly ignorant. It was deleted a few months ago because of BLP and notability concerns; the BLP concerns seem to have been addressed (imo) but I don't think the subject is actually notable. The only reliable sources are Discover magazine (apparently a pretty brief mention; I haven't read the article), the Boston Globe ~~(as brief a mention as it's possible to have)~~, and a true crime book. The latter two are unrelated to what Plutonium is internet-famous for, and being questioned by the police generally doesn't make you notable (which is why Wikipedia doesn't have articles for the other two people mentioned in the Boston Globe article). The only real justification for Wikipedia's notability policy is that lets Wikipedia's editors focus their attention on topics that are actually important. I don't think this subject is worth the thousands of hours Wikipedians have invested in it. P4k 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm short-changing the Boston Globe mention a little bit above I guess, but it's still pretty short.P4k 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination for various reasons. VICTORY FOR USENET.P4k 18:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Boston Globe mention--- it notes that Plutonium was called in because of his usenet presence. To anyone who was on usenet, omitting Plutonium is head-scratchingly bizzare.Likebox 07:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced. Colonel Warden 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and sourced. Rewrite math section if necessary.Likebox 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been through this so many times. The mathematics that's now in the article is complete nonsense and badly written nonsense at that. We can argue back and forth ad-infinitum about WP:BLP, but I also propose we can be sensible: This individual has achieved nothing of any scientific value, much less of notable scientific value. Plutonium's not really notable as a scientific crank; his notability if any, is as that of an individual who has become an easy target of ridicule and abuse, and unlike Emperor Norton, he's alive. Couldn't we just leave this guy alone (as has wisely been with other noteworthy living individuals)? --CSTAR 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember the previous debate about this article, which I had thought was neatly addressed by giving him just the brief entry in Notable Usenet personalities, to which Archimedes Plutonium was a redirect. There's no way we can give him a full article without imposing the standards we would apply to any other full article, i.e., reliable sourcing. Some people find his pronouncements interesting, but no reliable sources have found them interesting, so far as we can tell. He seems never to have attempted the route of conventional publication, which is the way other scholars have got the reputations that justify an article in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 21:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was in favor of keeping the article during the last two AFDs because I think that AP is one of the most notable Usenet personalities to emerge. The fact that his crankish writings do not approach coherence, much less plausibility, really isn't relevant: he's notable as a crank, not a theorist. Nonetheless, the last AfD passed and I don't like the recreation of a previously deleted article unless there is some clear change in the situation. Clearly, AP is not more notable now than then. Also, as I see it, the argument then was that it is almost impossible to satisfy BLP when writing about a crank and that certainly hasn't changed. Thus, while opposed to the original deletion, I also oppose this resurrection. Phiwum 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we manage to cover other cranks while satisfying BLP- it's often hard work but we have managed it with certain 'nutritionists', NLP gurus etc so articles get there in the end and it's really not grounds for deletion, or all articles discussing the various fruitloops and their theories would have to go.Merkinsmum 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Can you point to an article that we currently have on a notable eccentric or crank that has no reliable sources commenting on the theory? EdJohnston 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not what is being discussed by the above and I, he said its impossible to writte about a crank and satisfy BLP. I was saying it is not, I hesitate to name one here unless it is considered a violation. oh ok then not that I'm calling her a crank but some people question the theories of Gillian McKeith Tony Robbins and others. Sources was not what I meant I was more responding to Phiwum's comment, and saying that we do it successfully in other articles. As to sources, I think someone said above that he's been mentioned in several printed ones, I'm not that knowledgeable about this person though which is why I'm just commenting because I have experience on other articles on people with erm, interesting theories, and it is possible too make them into Good Articles, even.Merkinsmum 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keep his entry in Notable Usenet personalities, which was the result of the 3rd AfD. — Loadmaster 22:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, rewrite if necessary. There are sources. It should be possible to improve this page. --S.dedalus 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, sourced, and clinically insane. JJL 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Can people who are saying "notable and sourced" please explain why, address my original comments as to why I think this isn't true, etc.?P4k 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[7] How on earth is over 26,000 Google hits not notable? --S.dedalus 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources, not google hits.P4k 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You admit yourself that there are several articles in books and magazines. Google hits is then a perfectly valid and often used gage of notability. Furthermore it is unreasonable to demand huge numbers of external sources for a person who is primarily notable for internet work. This person is looks plenty notable to me. --S.dedalus 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I explain up top why I don't think those sources are sufficient to meet the notability guideline. There's no reason to hold internet people to a different standard than anyone else.P4k 02:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And google hits are often used but far from valid.P4k 02:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I read that right? This is the FOURTH nomination for deletion? The article is fine. The sources are no worse than any average Wikipedia article. On consideration, I have changed my vote to “strong keep.” --S.dedalus 03:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AP does not have 26,000 hits on Google; it's more like 430 (follow the "hits" chain to the last link). In comparison, my real name gets about 220 Google hits, and I'm certainly not famous. So, yeah, Google hit counts are fairly irrelevant. — Loadmaster 15:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep planty of hits on google. Also found it interesting that I can find conversation of people conspiring to get this article off of wikipedia. Ridernyc 02:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apparently Mr. Archimedes is also notable for inventing the term search engine bombing in 1997. --S.dedalus 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sentences at Notable Usenet personalities will cover what is useful in the few reliable published sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research into the meaning of unpublished/non-peer-reviewed mathematical ideas. --JWSchmidt 04:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not really the point though. This person is probably the most notable Usenet personality. His idea’s are eccentric, and the mathematics may not be necessary in the article. However the PERSON is clearly notable. --S.dedalus 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. The available reliable, published information sources about this "notable person" do not justify an article. The small number of points Wikipedia needs to make can easily be made at Notable Usenet personalities. The Wikipedia community has experimented with allowing a page for "Archimedes Plutonium" and we have learned that it becomes a target for unwelcome original research and a waste of time for community members. When a full-length biography of "Archimedes Plutonium" is published by a reputable publisher, we can reconsider, but for now, deletion of the "Archimedes Plutonium" page is the best path. Editors who want to continue an original research project on "Archimedes Plutonium" can do so at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 15:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If by that last sentence about Wikiversity you mean creating a biographical research entry on AP, that's probably appropriate, but if you mean that AP's theories can be presented as research, it's not (because his Usenet musings are obviously no such thing). — Loadmaster 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of "an original research project on Archimedes Plutonium" as being the reading of works attributed to "Archimedes Plutonium" and trying to determine what they mean and what their significance might be. In my view, results from this type of original research are currently being reported on Wikipedia where it is not welcome. I've never read any of the work attributed "Archimedes Plutonium", so I have no basis upon which to characterize it as "research" or anything else. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of his recent musings on sci.math, which are what he calls his "published books", in case you're interested in his "research" writings: #104 Real numbers, #115 Riemann Hypothesis, #121 Poincare Conjecture, #161 Largest prime.

Keep if the evidence for "Google bombing" is strong enough--that alone is sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently there's no evidence for it, so.P4k 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. . . excuse me. Did you look at the link I provided? There IS a source in the Google bomb article. You seem quit eager for this article to be deleted. --S.dedalus 05:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't look, my bad.P4k 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is this web page I found with a GIS which supports it: kibom.com, as well as the article on WikiVisual. If AP did indeed coin the term, that small fact can be added to the entry at Notable Usenet personalities. — Loadmaster 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is notable and cited. It could use some rewriting, though. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 01:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless AP himself and his sycophants are banned from Wikipedia, and the "theories" section is killed. This nonsense gives Wikipedia a bad name. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close until the arb com is done with their work this is premature. The claimed violation of WP:POINT has not been sustained by the committee as no result has come out of the process. For current status, see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Perhaps when the arb com is finished we can line up all the allegations of apartheid together and delete them all, but now is not that time. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The recreation of this article was a WP:POINT violation (See [8] for evidence) and it remains a violation of both WP:POINT and WP:SYNTH. It served as the mother for a series of WP:POINT articles such as Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Allegations of French apartheid etc which have since been deleted or renamed.

This article is a synthesis and OR because it brings together topics that no other author or source have brought together in order to create an argument. The title "allegations of apartheid" is highly misleading since, in most cases, not even the sources cited allege that actual apartheid is being practised by the countries named. Rather, in a number of instances, the term apartheid is used as an analogy or rhetorical flourish rather than as an actual allegation. For instance there is no actual allegation that "water apartheid" is a form of the crime of apartheid or is a form of legalized racial segregation. If it's necessary to have a page that lists all the article in which the term "apartheid" is used then a disambiguation page should be created as suggested by User:Kbolino in his edit comment here [9] but spinning an article out of a series of unconnected instances in which a term is employed is pure WP:SYNTH bordering on original research. I and a few others have attempted to rewrite the article to make it acceptable, it was previously little more than a laundry list of unconnected allegations, but the fundamental problems with the article remain so it should be deleted. Lothar of the Hill People 20:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mover. Lothar of the Hill People 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating the prime directive. Bearian 21:00, 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 wasNo consensus though merge with History of Doctor Who is a logical conclusion to this afd(article size aside), as is the tranwiki to TARDIS. These alternatives need further discussion on the article talk page as a combination of both is probably the ideal. I also note that information in this article doesnt date match information already in the History of Doctor Who Gnan garra 12:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who logo[edit]

Non-notable, and an article on the logo of one tv series is not encyclopedic. PROD failed. OZ OO (What?) 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, as the page shows information on the logo's changes through time, and due to the fact that a logo section does not fit on the main Doctor who page, it is required...Mrmccollough 20:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the Doctor Who page was not so large, this would belong their, but because of its size, I believe it should be kept here. See Wikipedia:Summary style. Although, it would be somewhat better with some pictures :P Tiddly-Tom 20:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your help in this matter, i appreciate it anyone else? Mrmccollough 20:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably Doctor Who's biggest American fan, but I'm going to have to favor delete and merge with History of Doctor Who. I don't think enough information exists to make this worthy of an article. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If i could find someone with permission to place images on this article, i think tahat would make it worthy, no? Mrmccollough 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images don't necessarily make it worthy. I think placing it within History of Doctor Who would be the best solution. But we'll see what kind of consensus emerges.

Oh, and if this page survives the AfD, I'm going to be a huge contributor. :-)=David^(talk)_(contribs) 20:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - History of Doctor Who is already quite large. I think it warrants its own article to prevent others becoming to large. Tiddly-Tom 20:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly seconded! Mrmccollough 21:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC

Oh and to =David, if this page does indeed survive this process a huge contribution would be more than welcome! Mrmccollough 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with History of Doctor Who Toddstreat1 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you merge an article about a logo and a program? though they are focused on the same program they are totally different articles! Mrmccollough 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The history of the logo is the history of the program; each one reflects the era's sensibilities, tastes, feels, likes, etc. Therefore, the articles can and should be the same. In my opinion. =David^(talk)_(contribs) 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however this article deals with the design and look of the logo itself, whereas the history article is clearly an article for things that happened in the show. The design of the logo shoul surely be kept separate. Mrmccollough 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(About 3ecs!) It is an article about the history of the program, and this article is about the history of the logo of a program :P They could be merged, but I think the current History Page is long enough to mean that this article should be kept here Tiddly-Tom 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote from the history of doctor who editing page: This page is 66 kilobytes long.! Surely that lenth warrents leaving this as a separate artical, with a link on the history page Mrmccollough 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Since when have we started having articles discussing TV show logos? Add the link to the site with the logos [10] to the main article. If anyone wants to see the logos they can go to that site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazysuit (talk • contribs) 01:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the subject does not warrant an article of its own. The history of the logo is not particularily notable - logos, titles, and such for programmes are commonly redone or refreshed throughout the run of the series. The fact that the DW logo has so many versions is a testament to the long run, not to the logo's design. Furthermore, unless someone can provide reference sources, there is no way to flesh out the article beyond the simple "this is the logo at year x" format. There's already a bunch of text that has to go due to being non-encyclopedic. (I actually tried to clean it up earlier, but my browser crashed. I'll try another pass later on.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 01:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a huge doctor who fan but this needs to go. I think we have found one of the limits of inheriting notability. I've said it before and I'll say it again just because it won't fit in the main article is not a reason to create a new page. You have to ask yourself if the information should just be removed. This is one of those cases. Ridernyc 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would also like to add that DR. Who is the perfect subject to have it's own wiki. If no one has started one I highly recommend it would support this all being transwiki'd to it. Ridernyc 02:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TARDIS, the Doctor Who wiki from Wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 06:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'm going to be spending sometime there. Also change my vote to transwiki since I checked and it seems this info is not on there. Ridernyc 07:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BBC Two 1991-2001 idents has it's own article... Should that go to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiddly Tom (talk • contribs) 10:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have recently added the dates each logo was used, this is added to the information on the page to fill it out...Mrmccollough 10:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to add a more detailed description of each logo...Mrmccollough 11:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Further information on colour and shape has been added to each logo's description in order to lenthen the article...Mrmccollough 11:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent notability. If the filler (much of which is repetitious and added recently in an attempt to save the article - see above comment by Mrmccullough) were removed from this page it would easily compress to a single paragraph or a table in the main article. Cosmo0 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More links to other pages, and a description of the article has now been added... Thankyou cosmo0 for your help in editing...Mrmccollough 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC) THE HISORY OF DOCTOR WHO PAGE PAGE IS 66kb LONG!!! Surely this constitutes separtating the logo history into a separate article???Mrmccollough 13:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of Doctor Who Will ^(talk) 14:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does nobody listen... The history of doctor who is to long to merge!Mrmccollough 14:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. it's only 66Kb long, and this article could easily be reduced and merged without losing that much info. --OZ OO (What?) 18:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

66 Kilobytes has to belong enough to warrent splitting this to its own article surely!!!Mrmccollough 15:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't free up space, and there is no definitive guide to article size. If HoDW IS too large than we could (theoretically) Merge into Doctor Who theme music and move the combined article to Doctor Who opening sequence or something else. --OZ OO (What?) 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not bad thinking actually...Mrmccollough 20:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'm sorry, guys, I gave this article a steroid shot worth of cleanup, but it won't survive on its own unless you bring some good data into it. I know, the main Doctor Who page is large, but this page will probably be deleted otherwise. Mindraker 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge: The article's 84kb as it is, strewing the logo in will just make it larger while adding little in terms of quality. Either keep if it's sufficient for its own article or delete it. Wizardman 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not really notable - the credit sequence alone is not normally notable for any other show is it? Besides the article is somewhat pointless because it describes in text what pictures look like (wihtout providing the pictures). Given that nobody not already familiar with Dr Who logos would be able to envisage what said logo looked like just from this article's descriptions and also given that anyone already familiar with what they look like doesn't need to read the article - who, exactly, is it for? Fancruft. A1octopus 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Doctor Who. Severely reduce the content as it is too much original research. The content of this article is not attributed to suitable sources. “The Doctor who logo collection” link is to a fan site, which not to a sufficiently reputable source. The target (History of Doctor Who) is rather large, but that is just too bad. Content that is independently notable can be split off. The logo stuff is not sufficiently notable on its own. --SmokeyJoe 12:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrosura[edit]

Non-notable collegiate dance group. --Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. None of the references are independent reliable sources. Blog doesn't count. Duke web page etc does not count - a mention on a Uni clubs page seems fine.Obina 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not wiki notable - looks like just a vanity page. Springnuts 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are not independent as they are university related/sponsored. Otherwise no 3rd party coverage to prove notability. SkierRMH 18:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could use some 3rd party sources, and tone down the peacock terms. Mindraker 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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^♫ 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Bruno[edit]

Is a DJ of questionable notability. I can find no google news hits for him (although many google news hits for other people of the same name) and a few mentions on websites such as an entry at thedjlist.com but that's it. JoshuaZ 23:54, 14 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, Caknuck 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced and very little in the way of notability established in the article. Delete unless well sourced. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No evidence of notability; indeed no real claim to notability. Springnuts 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one relevant Ghit (quite a few persons with this name) and the mention cited by the nom, notability not established. SkierRMH 18:14, 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. CitiCat^♫ 04:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola W370[edit]

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Reads like an advert; just a list of specs and no substantial sources. Mikeblas 21:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN object. Most of the other cell phone articles are NN and should be removed too, but they are written a lot better than this one. - Rjd0060 21:39, 14 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, Caknuck 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This can be better covered on Phonescoop. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No wiki notability established. Springnuts 21:15, 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. CitiCat^♫ 04:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Fishkin[edit]

I've received a credible request for courtesy deletion from the subject of this biography. Per the precedents at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seth_Finkelstein_(2nd) and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(14th_nomination), please delete (first choice) or (second choice) merge/redirect into search engine optimization. Mr. Fishkin's page is a stub and he's probably less notable than either Mr. Finkelstein or Mr. Brandt. I doubt very much that any paper-and-ink encyclopedia would devote an article to him, and although this is sourced, it's basically only five lines of material. That's unlikely to ever grow into a featured article and the person whose most affected by this article's existence would be happier without it. Let's give him some peace. Durova^Charge! 19:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started the article and I confirm that the subject requested deletion. He's borderline notable. It's not going to hurt us to let go of this article. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; eh. Could be considered WP:BLP1E material, really; borderline notability, and as we've seen before, why spend the time fighting over stuff like this? Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN, overstated references.Toddstreat1 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - courtesy costs nothing. Springnuts 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, optionally merge professional material into an article on SEOmoz instead. Very marginal notability. --Dhartung | Talk 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unanimous opinions. Could we get a WP:SNOW here? Even the subject of the bio wants this gone. Durova^Charge! 15:54, 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 as copyright infringement. Sam Blacketer 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rennie Harris Puremovement[edit]

Vanity article that reads like an advert. Fails WP:N. Cap'n Walker 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Despite being successful, does not mean that it is encyclopedic. Tiddly-Tom 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Article may need work, but he's a notable performance artist and educator. Plenty of WP:Seliable Sources are available from news sources. A quick Gsearch[11] turned up two pages of news hits including the LA Times. Toddstreat1 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a verbatim copyvio. So tagged - I've not actually deleted-and-closed this just in case someone feels the urge to do a rewrite. — iridescent 21:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Good catch. Toddstreat1 22:17, 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 keep. --Core desat 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet![edit]

Song is still non-notable, and no amount of rewriting the article will fix that. That's why the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep and fix". Kww 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. Kww 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a very well known song in a very popular movie. It has been covered several times, including notably as the title of a Family Guy episode. The article seems to be well written. Kevin 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known song indeed from an extremely popular film, dozens of reliable source notes. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple citations provides objective evidence of notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First article was a mere stub, and the delete decision understandable. The new article however seems to me to establish sufficient notability - indeed strongly so. Springnuts 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently different, sufficiently sourced, seems to passWP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nicer article than the one Betty Monroe had. Keep. DS 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, with reservations I'm gonna tag one part of the area as a Wikipedia:Trivia violation. Pop culture references shouldn't be listing every single instance of the song title or influences. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete No attempt made to help cleanup article, or verify facts in article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as is shows notability I would think. Yamaguchi先生 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know WP:Fiction is not exactly the correct policy to cover this but I think we could safely say that the songs of from Rocky Horror clearly inherit notability from the parent article. Ridernyc 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is it non-notable? It has 38 references from secondary sources...which, by the way, is 8 more than God. Smashville 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Answer How many of those 38 were about the song, and how many were about the movie? Of those that were about the song, how many were really about the song, and how many were used just because the reporter wanted to make a joke about his subject being named "Janet"? Kww 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, Janet! was never a movie. The statement "how many were really about the song" expects others to supply the reasoned analysis to support such a statement. The other statements are not the result of labor in reviewing the reliable source material. Rather, they are merely guesses on your part - personal opinions, unsupported by reasoned analysis with no bases in Wikipedia article standards. Articles are not deleted based on unsupported, personal opinions. -- Jreferee t/c 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, apparently they're only kept on the basis of unsupported personal opinions. Otto4711 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Total rewrite since last AfD, asserts notability very well now. Plenty of valid sources, no reason to delete. -- Sander Säde 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville Will ^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are some parts of the trivia section that could be removed, it meets most of the criteria of Songs notablity. SkierRMH 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not that it will make the slightest bit of difference in the face of this gaggle of ill-informed, some might say knee-jerk, keep !votes, but the song is simply not notable. Yes, the title of the song has been mentioned in a number of articles that are about the film or the stage show. This does not satisfy WP:N's requirement of "significant coverage" about the song itself. It does not meet any of the suggested guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC#Songs. The notability of the musical or the film is not inherited by every song from the musical. Absent a reliable source that each and every one of the mentions of the two words that comprise the title were in fact inspired by the title, that entire section is original research based on the assumption that every occurrence of the two words together must by definition be an allusion to the song. Otto4711 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the term "notability" doesn't seem to be based on any Wikipedia article standards. In regards to importance of the song, why should any Wikipedian's personal opinion about the song supersede the decision of numerous reliable sources to include information about the song in their publication? All these reliable sources make business decisions on what to include and what to exclude in their publication. If they include information about a topic, they are saying that topic is important enough for that reliable source to spend money on it and include information about it in their publication. And if the reliable sources think the topic is important enough to include in their publications, that is good enough for Wikipedia to include in its publication. Wikipedia article standards reflect that. -- Jreferee t/c

I use the word "notability" to mean "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which could not be any more solidly based in Wikipedia article standards because it is the standard. I am struggling mightily to assume good faith here, but I do not understand how anyone can legitimately claim that a source that merely mentions the title of the song can possibly be considered a reliable source that attests to the notability of the song itself. The mere mention of a song title in an article that is not about the song is not "significant coverage" of the song. Citing a handful of articles that include the words "Dammit Janet" in them and claiming (absent any reliable sourcing that the use of the two words are even a RHPS reference at all) that they establish the notability of the song is like citing this article as evidence of the notability of the Time Warp. As has been stated below, find me a reliable source that is significant in its coverage of the song and not just including the two words of the title and great, there's evidence of notability. Find me a bunch of passing mentions of the song title and, no, sorry, not notable. Otto4711 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per otto, and having a glut of references that prove mentions rather than notability does not help matters out at all, like "this headline say Damnit Janet" or such. Can probably be redirected. Dannycali 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that Ott04711 would say "delete" and in his rationale link to a guideline that says "Most songs... should redirect to another relevant article" is just more evidence of the practically pathological need some people feel to delete stuff in the face of all reason. If nothing else, this should be a redirect, not deleted. Even the stuff he links to in his deletion arguments says that deletion isn't called for, it's just bizarre. --W.marsh 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, redirect it, the point still stands that the song is in no way independently notable and should under no circumstances have an independent article. Otto4711 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I noticed that this article had been resurrected despite the original "delete" consensus, my first step was to establish a redirect to the quite notable parent article, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. That redirect was undone, which is why I renominated it for AFD. Otto4711's arguments are actually quite sound. This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.Kww 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD isn't perpetually binding... people wanting to improve an article that once had problems is a good thing, not a procedural violation as you suggest in the nomination. --W.marsh 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a procedural problem. If there was evidence of notability, the first vote should have been to keep and improve. There was no change in the notability between the original deletion and the recreation.Kww 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change... there's just no policy saying that one AFD means an article can never be recreated. This AFD is showing a consensus for keeping so far, so you're being very selective (and biased), just looking for out-of-date AFDs that show a result you agree with. --W.marsh 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus apparently can change when it's in the direction that you agree with. Has "consensus" really "changed" so much in the 16 days since the last AFD closed? Seems doubtful. And, really, an AFD from two weeks ago is "out of date? Really? Otto4711 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The AFd is out of date because the current article has been totally rewritten from the one that AFD discussed, and consensus seems to have changed because of the large number of people arguing "keep" in this discussion. --W.marsh 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, put yourself in the closer's position. When you make a sweeping, generalization such as "This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable," how do you expect the closer to give such a statement any weight? You give no indication as to what you mean by "regard to context" nor provide enough examples to support your statement. From such a sweeping, unsupported statement, it seems reasonable to conclude that you did not actually read the cited references and are making a conclusory statement based on your personal dislike for the topic. Assuming bad faith and listing your personal dislike for a topic is not a basis to delete an article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee, try to keep a straight face and tell me that an article titled "The Indie 50; The essential movies." or "Let's do the Time Warp again: The Sweet Transvestite and an innocent couple collide in The Rocky Horror Show on stage" were about the song. Personally, I like the song. I have soundtrack albums from the movie and two of the stage shows, and can sing every song by heart. Doesn't make them all worth an article.Kww 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's should not be second guessing the decisions of reliable sources to include information about a topic in their publication. When we resort to our personal opinions about a topic or personal beliefs about the merits of the material in a reliable source publication, we censor Wikipedia on one hand and, even worse, we allow in a whole bunch of material that no one but those personally interested in the topic care about. Wikipedia has no "experts" (thankfully) and relies on the business decisions of reliable sources to determine what to include in Wikipedia and what to exclude. On the big picture, Wikipedia's approach works to exclude material from Wikipedia that is generated in a personal computer and then posted on a blog or website. It would be inconsistent to tell a COI poster that his personal opinion about the importance of a topic is irrelevant and then turn around and make personal value judgments as Wikipedians on material from reliable sources. We cannot have it both ways. Long ago, a handful of Wikipedians had their thinking caps on when they put this whole Wikipedia system together. I still remain amazed by its intertwining workings. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we rely on is people to understand a sentence like this one: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive." None of your references address the song "Dammit Janet" in directly in detail. They just don't count.Kww 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh spare me. Wikipedians shouldn't be making decisions as to whether a source is reliable or not? We make decisions all the time about the reliability and the quality of sources. Unfortunately far too many editors labor under the misconception that a simple reference to a subject in a larger source constitutes evidence of that subject's notability, but that is simply not the case. "Someone said 'Foo' in a movie" is not evidence in support of the notability of Foo and "someone wrote 'Dammit Janet' in an article that has nothing to do with the song" is not evidence of the song's notability. Otto4711 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per snow and because it's a notable song from a notable film. Also, if this is the second nomination, shouldn't the first discussion be linked to above a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld (2nd nomination)? I see it is linked to above, but isn't the Seingeld discussion the proper format for a relisting? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously meets Wikipedia article standards. Some background - Dammit, Janet! was deleted October 6, 2007 after being listed by Otto4711 for deletion. The deletion of Dammit, Janet! then was a basis for listing the remaining Rocky Horror songs for deletion by Otto4711 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Horror songs, which I closed as no consensus on October 13, 2007. Rocky Horror songs then was listed at deletion review on October 15, 2007, closed as endorse. Using substantial new informtion, I recreated Dammit, Janet! The delete reasoning in this AfD#2 clarifies that no matter how much reliable source material exists for this song, it does not pass some sort of personal smell test some people use. Bias towards or against a topic is not a basis to keep or delete an artice. -- Jreferee t/c 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a difficult smell test It's references like http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html that smell ... an article about a performance of three songs from Rocky Horror that doesn't include "Dammit Janet" that happens to use the phrase in passing being used as a reference for notability. All of your references seem to be like that. Find me one article that is primarily about the song, not about the stage show, not about the movie, and not about Janet Jackson's breasts, and I'll accept it as a legitimate reference for the article. Find me three, and I'll call the song notable in its own right.Kww 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough sources address the Dammit, Janet! subject directly in detail to meet WP:N. Otherwise, the article would not be so well sourced. Jimmy Wales himself said, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.[12] If we adopt the high threshold for articles that you propose, we would be doing something different than what Jimbo envisioned. -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop appealing to hero worship. The standards I am trying to apply are straight out of WP:N, and it's a shame that you feel you have some right to ignore them.Kww 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that complex. I didn't make up the details in the Wikipedia article. I got them directly from the reliable sources. If it says it, I put it in; if it don't, I don't. Wikipedia policy should not be turned into rocket science. -- Jreferee t/c 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was assume that any use of the words "dammit" and "Janet" in that order is a reference to the song. That's original research. And even if it weren't, what you've compiled is not an article about the song but instead a "List of times the song titl 'Dammit, Janet" was mentioned in the media". This is not a valid topic of an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 14:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per wp:common, contra otto and the nominator, the material is clearly verifiably notable per wikipedia guidelines specifically where common sense comes to play.--Buridan 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made this same claim of obvious verifiable notability in the last AFD and, when asked to provide backup for it, fell strangely silent. Otto4711 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, because if you cannot do the basic work to see notability, i have nothing left but silence for you. this was notable before, the other materials related to rocky horror were notable before. it isn't hard to see their notability under common sense, it isn't hard to find citations that refer to this song as I indicated. It may be difficult to separate out independent notability, but then... it is hard to do that for any given scientific concept too, they both rely on the mesh of meanings and notable relations. --Buridan 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one claiming that the song was independently notable. It is very easy to breeze into any old AFD you feel like and say "keep, notable" but if you are unwilling to do the work necessary to back up your claim, then you should not be surprised when your opinion is ignored as it was in that AFD. "It just is" is in no way a persuasive argument. Neither is "here's a bunch of magazine articles that use the same two words in the same order" but sadly it appears that this is the argument that will carry the day here. You are absolutely right that there are many references to the title of this song. I hope that one day soon you and other editors will come to understand that a reference to something is not substantial coverage of the thing and does not serve to establish notability.
By the way, I wasn't the one who asked you to provide sourcing in the first AFD. It was Torchwood Who? who asked you. I guess you have nothing left but silence for him too. Otto4711 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep, but it isn't an article that i want to invest my time in, but I can see the merits of investing in it, as the current article demonstrates. it is clear from this discussion and the article that the material was available. --Buridan 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should at least invest the time to look at the references in the article. It quickly becomes clear that Jreferee could not find any articles or references about the song at all.Kww 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't have to, notability is established, the cites are merely for verification. --Buridan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject, sources that address the subject directly in detail. Not a single one of the sources linked in the article address the subject of the song directly in detail. Your assertion that notability is established by these trivial mentions merely indicates that you lack even a basic understanding of WP:N. But hey, prove me wrong, you should be up for that. Show me even one source that is directly and in detail about the song. Just one. Otto4711 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice interpretation, but that's really not quite the standard. notability does not require the exclusive coverage that you indicate. it only requires that it is specifically covered. which, you'll note it is. stop wiki-lawyering and use wp:common. --Buridan 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't want to waste your valuable time, but please take a look at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html and tell me what definition of "significant coverage" (which is the standard in WP:N) you use that includes that one. Look at the titles of the rest, and think about what the coverage is in those. Note that Jreferee used nearly exclusively paper references, and the only online one he provides is garbage. The only way for me to prove that they don't have significant coverage is to fly to the States and go to a library with a good periodical collection, but I can make a pretty good guess that an article titled "Scottish-rooted Choke has come a long way" doesn't contain direct and significant coverage of the song.Kww 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, so what you are saying is that you do not know if the material is notable because you cannot discern the quality of the sources, even though the sources are multiple, overlap, and provide verifiability to the information in question? so where again is the basis of your afd nomination other than... 'i do not like the sources that complie with the guidelines'.--Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me "direct and significant coverage" in the one, single, solitary online reference provided in the article? Did you bother to even look at it?Kww 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interpretation"? It's a direct quote from WP:N#General_notability_guideline and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you haven't even read that guideline. At no point did I say that sources have to be "exclusive coverage." They do need to, and this is a quote from the guideline again, "address the subject directly in detail" and the coverage must be "more than trivial." The inclusion of a song's name in a source does not "address the [song] directly in detail" and such a mention is not "more than trivial." Otto4711 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it wasn't a direct quote, at least not of the details you left out. they do address the song directly, just not exclusively, and trivilaity is not for you to judge alone. here for instance, they are not trivial mentions. they combined weight of trivia is knowledge. --Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Are you joking? You're actually going to claim that I didn't quote WP:N directly when anyone can read WP:N and compare it to my post? Is this really the level of intellectual dishonesty you have to resort to in your attempt to defend this article? I never said that coverage had to be exclusive and your insistence on assigning a word to me that I never used amounts to a lie. You're stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies. In fact, it's you who is leaving out important parts of the definition. The subject must be addressed directly and in detail. Otto4711 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't claim that at all. i claimed that you excluded the bit about an important factor. much like you tend to cite notability does not transfer, when it frequently does. you marshall the important parts of non-policy, much like i marshall the important parts of policy. i just inserted the key point of the definition. go look again and please, try to keep it in mind that we are both acting in good faith. i did not say that you did anything wrong, i just said your quotation was biased in this case because you did not quote a pertinent part of policy. people do that, it's fine when someone else points it out, that's ok. --Buridan 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To put it indelicately, bullshit. I quoted the guideline, you inserted the word "exclusively" out of nowhere and still can't coherently state what I supposedly left out. None of which changes the simple fact that no sources have been offered that demonstrate the independent notability of this subject. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps you should go reread the guideline? and i quote ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive.[2]"." you ignored the less than exclusive part. have a great day!--Buridan 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should see if the sources satisfy the first sentence before moving on to the second. Do any of these sources address the subject of the song directly and in detail? No. No more need be said. But if you insist on looking to the second sentence, then let's look at the first part of it first. Are any of these mentions "more than trivial"? No. The mere presence of the title in an article is not under any rational definition of the word anything but trivial. The combined weight of trivia is trivia. And for someone who supposedly has no interest in investing time in this article, you sure are investing a lot of time in the AFD. Too bad you didn't use that time actually backing up your claims. Otto4711 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, they do meet that, but the sources do not need to be exclusively about that song. so an article that talks about this song and many other songs, is about this song directly, and may be in detail, but it does not have to be exclusively about the song. --Buridan 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source that only mentions the title of a song is not about the song at all. And I still never said anything about exclusivity so the fact that you keep raising it as if I did and it has any relevance here is nothing but more intellectual dishonesty. You can't rebut the actual arguments that are being made ao you resort to making up arguments, pretending that other people made them and then responding to them. And you've once again left out part of the definition, after accusing me of doing it. The sources must discuss the subject directly and in detail. That's directly and in detail. To reiterate, the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. Has the point that the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail been made abundantly clear now? Do you get it? Otto4711 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's much less notable stuff on Wiki, and this one is a classic.-- Matthead ^discuß! O 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. If there is other material on Wikipedia that you believe is not notable, find reliable sources or nominate it for deletion. The non-notability of other material does not excuse the lack of notability of this material. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of restaurants in New York City[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory, catergory already exists for the notable ones, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^sup 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category is appropriate. Delete. —Verrai 19:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, Verrai. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk Contributions 21:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the talk page for WikiProject New York City.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It basically just duplicates the category. The list is laughable, and certainly not notable. Marc Shepherd 00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I notified the most recent two editors; I want to hear their comments. there might be an unwieldy number of potential restaurants. DGG (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no problems with this being deleted as has been said earlier - I think it duplicates the category. Postcard Cathy 10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for potentially extremely large lists, categories are preferred. This is such a list. Carlossuarez46 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category ensures only notable restaurants are kept. Spellcast 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. There is no reason for this to exist on Wikipedia especially ing catagory. [[Guest9999 12:11, 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 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Wittman[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, non-notable local television personality Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:30, 19 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, Core desat 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White (reporter)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, the only notable thing about him is his role on Sightings, and that part can be merged there if valuable enough. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seven seasons as host of a major network show is fairly notable, as are the multiple regional Emmy awards[13]http://www.nataslgl.org/emmy/winners99.html] he's won. There are two more from his work in Washington, DC that I can't find specific cites for, but are in his bio. Which also indicates he's hosted numerous shows for other networks. Problem: parts of this article look to be lifted from said bio - but that's repairable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 19 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, Core desat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -News coverage seems significant. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Jerome[edit]

Delete - no notability. Had minor 13 week appearance on a soap opera after winning a reality show I Wanna Be a Soap Star. No other work of note. Does not meet notability criteria for having an article. Information also lacks sourcing. IrishLass0128 19:04, 19 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, Core desat 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to meet notability requirements to me. -Drdisque 17:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Holt[edit]

Non-notable actress, COI addition to the database, no notable performances which make her famous enough to have an article. Corvus cornix 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough to have article. --Alessandro 19:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote as yet, but it seems that the same person (or someone claiming the same name) also added the information to the IMDb database. That would seem to me to be a strike against. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete as insufficiently notable at this time. WP:COI suggests that if she were more notable, she should be able to rely on disinterested parties to create a proper article for her instead. With only her self-added IMDb data and her official website, independent tertiary sources are lacking at the moment. (And I'm skeptical of IMDb's vetting of her information. They certainly don't seem to have cared that she apparently added 2 largely overlapping mini-bios, when even one is a bit unseemly.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles like this for folks with minor notability are ripe for coi problems and even worse BLP violations. Delete unless a solid reliable source offers significant evidence of notablity and background information. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only cited source is from IMDB, of which, it seems to be written by her. Not enough note-worthy credits either. TGreenburgPR 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Stylus 1 Operation[edit]

Bogus/vanity article, no Google results except for the WP entry - creator has history of vandalism and nonsense. - eo 18:42, 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. --Core desat 05:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2talk[edit]

Delete No third party sources for this article about nn company. A bit of a promo piece. Fails WP:CORP & WP:N Carlossuarez46 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP, one of a million VoIP companies. Very spammy, no outside coverage provided. shoeofdeath 05:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepless Nights (band)[edit]

Despite the references on the talk page, this still seems like a nonnotable band to me. They've released just one EP and are "working on" a second album. The CBC listing appears to be directly copied from the band's MySpace page. NawlinWiki 18:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is currently playing the pop explosion in Halifax and have a full length album coming out before the end of the year for their winter tour in mid November. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carerejoe (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete* Does not meet music notability guidelines. Dlabtot 19:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepless Nights have released one full length record. One split 7inch record and one EP. The 4th release, a full length called "turn into vapour" will be released in January on Forward Music Group. (http://www.forwardmusicgroup.com) The Hang up EP has charted on numerous college radio stations, as well as the national earshot chart. Reaching number 1 at a few of the college level. http://65.61.201.48/charts/2007/July/top200.cfm (number 81) They are going to be heading out on their 4th tour this year at the start of November. Have shared the stage with such acts as Jon Rae & the river, the meligrove band(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Meligrove_Band), wintersleep(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintersleep, In-flight safety(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Flight_Safety), Raising the fawn(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_the_Fawn), The Hylozolists(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoists_%28band%29), Grand Theft bus(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Bus) & the juno award winning Wooden Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wooden_Stars)

Matt MacDonald of the band also plays in The Superfantastics, who have just finished a tour with Blue Heller. Which is Julie Doiron(polaris award nominee and performer) and Dick Morello(of shotgun and jaybird)

Recently have played the Halifax Pop Explosion and got national press on the show. http://chartattack.com/damn/2007/10/1803.cfm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.92.25 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The band is also being showcased this year at the Nova Scotia Music Awards. http://www.musicnovascotia.ca/NSMW07/Showcases.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.92.25 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're going to get to the point where they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines eventually, but right now they're still not quite getting there. If someone has more media coverage that would qualify as reliable sources, I'd be interested to see it, but for the moment weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 19 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, Core desat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete do not yet meet WP:MUSIC. maybe someday. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Already Deleted by Secret at 05:42, October 23, 2007 (CSD A7 (Band): Article about a band that does not assert significance). Afd discussion closed by B1atv 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

ENERTIA: Pure American Metal[edit]

The subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline per WP:MUSIC and is completely unreferenced. I have tried to find sources about this band but the results have been unsuccessful. I found four MySpace mentions and an official website but no news sources of any kind. AngelOfSadness talk 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable band, no sources. NawlinWiki 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be several groups with this name (US & Australia), mainly myspace & similar references. Nothing found to support the allegations of albums & tours made in the article.SkierRMH 18:51, 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 keep. John254 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wooster School[edit]

No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria, lots of original research, probably conflict of interest from primary contributers. Guest9999 17:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused...I don't see any original research. In addition...it's an 81 year old private school with notable alumni. Per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools have generally passed notability requirements by being in existence. I have trouble believing an 81 year old school is not notable...so yes...my keep reason is essentially..."It's old". Smashville 18:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as obviously notable school, around a long time, with notable alumni. No reasonable attempt to fix the article or to research its notability has been made. Also, fulfills WP:OUTCOMES. BTW, I reverted the removal of its AfD tag and blocked the SPA who did it. I'll find some sites. As a courtesy, fellow sysops, please leave this AfD open for at least a few days unless you keep it. Bearian 21:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. 24,000 Ghits; see [14]. Bearian 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources are provided to clearly satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. If only all school articles were of this quality. There doesn't seem to be any OR here, and COI seems to be irrelevant here. Alansohn 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, folks, let's refrain from nominating high schools unless their campus is someone's garage. SolidPlaid 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not feel it's old is a reasonable arguemnt for keeping the article - there are trees in my back garden that are far older which don't have articles (and probably shouldn't). common outcomes is not a policy or guideline - it is just a summary of past decidions it does not superceed policies or guideline (see at the top: "For rules, guidelines, and consensus on a more detailed basis, visit the various notability policy pages instead"). I do not think the fact that notable alumni may have attended makes the school notable, notability is not inherited and a subject should be notable in its own right. Unless the alumni have caused there to be "significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources" of the school then it should not have its own article per WP:NN. Currently the article is not written from a neutral point of view (although this could be changed) and unless there are independent sources that show that the article is notable (per WP:NN) that will make the information contained in the article verifiable I do not feel it belongs on Wikipedia. Of course if such sources are found I will withdraw my nomination if there is no dissenting arguemnt within the debate. [[Guest9999 22:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Keep the very purpose of a school is to produce alumni, and its fame in the world is measured by who the alumni turn out to be. This is a major element of notability. Among the various high schools with potential articles, this is probably in the top bracket by any reasonable standard. Even those who do not think all high schools notable agree that the best of them are. DGG (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It says specifically on WP:NN that notability "is distinct from "fame","importance", or "popularity".". I would also question the level of "its fame in world" personally having spend significant amounts of time in various locations around Europe, Africa and Asia I do not think I have met anyone who could name an American High School they are not personaly linked to, even though they would be able to name hundreds or thousands of Americans have (in all probablility) an education. [[Guest9999 11:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

If Wikipedia notability is distinct from fame, etc., why would its notability be dependent on how many people in Europe and Asia have heard of the school? Alansohn 13:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, my point was two-fold. 1) Fame isn't the same as notability and 2) The topic in question isn't famous anyway (at least on the world scale that was claimed). I know that the second point is a bit redundant but I felt it was worth bringing up, it was meant as a reply not a stand alone comment. [[Guest9999 14:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

The claim is that the school is notable, not famous. Let's leave famous out of this and address the claims of notability made in the article for the school. Alansohn 15:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I completely agree; forget about fame. My point is that there is no evidence given on the page that the school is notable - in that there is no evidence of significant coverage by multiple indepedent secondary sources. No such sources have been presented in the debate - people have just talked about fame, age and famous alumni. [[Guest9999 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I and others have added more cites to prove notability. Famous alumni and teachers are often the only way to prove a school's notability -- students are the products or outcomes of a school, and teachers are the means, which prove its worth. Bearian 15:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because the article is extensive and has many references and also per this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems written and reffed to an acceptable level. If any major flaws exist they should be addressed with regular editing per WP:AfD. Benjiboi 18:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album) B1atv 20:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

You Should Have Lied[edit]

Because the only source for this articles existance is someones review of the album on CD Universe and a user keeps on adding the cover of the single which is fake. Lillygirl 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect into ~~Stephanie McIntosh~~ Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album). As it stands now, the article is a WP:CBALL. The info that is there, is largely unsourced. --Evb-wiki 17:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't redirect to the artist, redirect to the album - Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album). When it actually becomes a single, then the redirect can be undone. Corvus cornix 19:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tightrope (Stephanie McIntosh album) until WP:CBALL issues are resolved. SkierRMH 18:57, 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. Carioca 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Promise[edit]

Non notable? Doesn't assert notability at any rate, nor does it seem particularly special. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't assert notability, and since it says it's published in October 2007 that's not surprising. There seem to be serveral companies called Evangel Press, and none appear to be major publishers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits in the garden of Google for the complete title. No mention of notability in article. SkierRMH 19:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, this subject is not verifiably notable. Burntsauce 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, g3, obvious hoax, mostly copied from Wellington Koo (including the picture). NawlinWiki 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew wang[edit]

Obvious hoax. Claims to have lived for over one hundred years, from 1887 to 1990, yet the "picture" is from 2005. The picture is also not of this person; it's listed as being of Vi-Hyuin Wellington Koo. GlassCobra 17:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to be a well written hoax. Anyway, it appears fail WP:NOTE. Tiddly-Tom 17:46, 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. --Core desat 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Túrós csusza[edit]

Not notable, not cited, and not encyclopedic. WP:NOT#GUIDE JFlav 16:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This article was proposed for deletion less than a day after its creation by a new user. This violates Don't bite the newcomers. Colonel Warden 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be ridiculous. The nominator hasn't shown any hostility towards the creator. Where does it say in that guideline that articles created by new editors are immune from AFD? You must be new here, hundreds of articles by new editors are nominated for deletion every week. Masaruemoto 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has any effort been made to contact the author of this new article? Has any effort been made, apart from mine, to improve the article? It seems not - we just have a knee-jerk and discourteous attempt to 'score a point' by shooting down the good faith work of a new editor. Please read Don't bite the newcomers too re your "you must be new here" comment. Colonel Warden 08:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did, in fact, contact the author when I put the article up for deletion. However, after readin your comment I decided to put more effort into it. Yesterday I wrote a longer, more conversational, comprehensive overview of why I put Túrós csusza up for deletion and posted it on the author's talk page. Neither of these contacts provoked a response. Indeed, the author hasn't edited any pages since the day he or she created the page in question according to the contribution page. It seems that, in your effort to decry "shooting down the good faith work of a new editor", you do not assume good faith, because a good faith effort has been made to contact and inform the author. JFlav 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for clarifying your efforts to contact the original author which do indeed seem quite diligent. Colonel Warden 10:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from making me slightly nauseous just imagining such a dish, Wikipedia is not, as mentioned, a guide, or indiscriminate collection of information, such as recipes. I'm sure there are many sites devoted to collecting recipes that would be pleased as punch to have this recipe listed, but I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ariel♥Gold :D Tiddly-Tom 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some quick googling indicates that this dish is a notable element in Hungarian cuisine which shows up repeatedly in travel guides and restaurant reviews. It therefore merits its article just like fish and chips, mooncakes, Twinkies, kimchi, etc. It is exactly the sort of article which one would expect to find in a comprehensive encyclopaedia. I have made an editing pass through the article to add links and a reference. That's all that's needed - some improvements. Colonel Warden 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it may be notable in Hungary, I think the big difference between this dish, and the items you use as examples, is the world-wide use in multiple countries of those items that have their own articles, whereas this item is very likely not as wide-sweeping in its availability. I think you can get "Fish and Chips" in just about any country in the world, (called by different names, of course), and Twinkies are, of course, quite notable, as they've been written about, used in film, media, etc., Kimchi has the same notability, it is a worldwide dish. While I'd personally never heard of mooncakes, reading through the article on them demonstrates their wide-spread presence in many countries. However, I think this particular dish is not in the same category as those others. Note that I don't deny that the dish exists, I simply did not personally think this is widely known dish worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. I just looked...definitions of various foods on Wiktionary...perhaps this could be moved there? Smashville 19:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would not be appropriate because these are Hungarian words, not English. They do not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. Colonel Warden
  - I believe you're confused. A word doesn't have to be in the Oxford English Dictionary to be on Wiktionary. Smashville 16:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki, unless some genuine reliable sources are added to establish notability. I've removed the travel agent's link from the article, I know it was intended to be a reference, but it isn't a reliable source and too spammy to be included here. Masaruemoto 03:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The source seeemd quite reliable to me but, since you have deleted it, I have added three more substantial references. It wasn't hard. Colonel Warden 08:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, a commercial site designed to sell holidays isn't a reliable source for asserting notability for a type of food. The three sources you added are not substantial, they merely mention Túrós csusza in passing. See WP:N. Masaruemoto 04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are 'more substantial' and adequate to indicate notability. Bear in mind that, as this dish seems to be local to Hungary, coverage of it will mainly be in Hungarian language sources. I am not familiar with that language and so unable to search these. And bear in mind, that this encyclopaedia covers the world, not just the Anglo-American part and its own parochial cuisine such as macaroni cheese. Colonel Warden 08:20, 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 sppedy delete. "well known for custom tile, marble, granite, and other stone crafts." isn't a claim of notabilty Jbeach ^sup 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vito talamo[edit]

Vanity stub that fails WP:BIO and WP:N. I didn't A7 because the article does weakly assert notability. Cap'n Walker 16:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability Bfigura ^(talk) 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete: for lack of notability. Toddstreat1 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nice try, but that's (rightly) not a speedy criteria — iridescent 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, forgot to say Delete as apparently unexpandable — iridescent 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most G-hits are for myspace & similar sites, obviously not relevant to this article. Could find nothing in quick search to support notability claims in article. SkierRMH 19:40, 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 g1, g3, patent nonsense/hoax, no sources (which there would be if Tony Blair were actually involved in this). NawlinWiki 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair Adventures[edit]

Probable Hoax. "Tony Blair Adventures" returns 4 ghits, none related to an animated program. Prod removed by anon who added several links to people and networks supposedly related to the show, but that don't say anything about the show. --Onorem♠Dil 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, appears to be a hoax. Tiddly-Tom 17:50, 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 g11 advertising (including the article title). NawlinWiki 18:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Diving Lodge, Cayman's First and Only Green Resort[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cayman Diving Lodge, Cayman's First and Only Green Resort

Creator removed a previous PROD. Fails WP:N, and most of the content fails WP:V Martijn Hoekstra 16:04, 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 a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John the Breeze[edit]

Non-notable student film series Cap'n Walker 15:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability requirements in WP:MOVIE (not distributed, not reviewed, no awards, etc.), not to mention a conflict of interest between article and original author (I am aware that COI is not a reason to delete, just thought I'd mention it). Useight 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Useight. Tiddly-Tom 17:52, 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 Delete. Espresso Addict 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Federation of TeenAge Republicans[edit]

Contested prod. Non notable regional, youth branch of a political organisation Nuttah68 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficiently notable org. NawlinWiki 18:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, COI vanity page for a non notable org. NeoFreak 02:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG due to lack of independent notability and lack of independent sources. --Metropolitan90 05:43, 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. --Core desat 05:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stepsonday[edit]

Contested speedy. Non notable band that fails WP:BAND. One recently released album to their name and no other claim to notability Nuttah68 15:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been slightly expanded for NATIONAL RELEASE in March 2008; including release date on major label-distributed record label. This should not be deleted.mertzrock 17:01, 19 October 2007
Delete - per Nuttah68 Tiddly-Tom 17:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable band Will ^(talk) 14:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable; one self-published album, no 3rd party coverage, future album not notable or referenced w/reliable sources. SkierRMH 21:23, 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 both a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gidago Free Blog Service[edit]

advertising, no assertion of notability Toddstreat1 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Also:[reply]

Gidago shoy 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No assertion of notability" is why I had it tagged WP:CSD#A7. Speedy delete. shoy 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete both Gidago Free Blog Service and Gidago. GlassCobra 17:15, 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 deleted by NawlinWiki in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. Acalamari 18:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esportivo papifutbol fc[edit]

Doesn't show any evidnec of beng notable, informaton may not be verifiable looks liked conflict of interest original reasearch Guest9999 15:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add several identical articles to this AfD:

ESPORTIVO PAPI FUTBOL FC
ESPORTIVO PAPAI FUTBOL FC
Esportivo papifutbol -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what this is but it isn't anything we should keep. Pick your favorite policy, I'm sure it violates it. Nuke it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears, the best I can interpret, to be a non-notable amateur football club. Virtually incoherent; if this is a notable group, someone else will have to write the article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I'm sure we can find a CSD category for it. shoy 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A7, perhaps? No real assertion of notability or even sources. A speedy delete for all these articles seem appropriate. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:42, 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 a7 no assertion of notability, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki 18:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crackajack[edit]

No reliable sources (only a MySpace page) and unclear notability (a rapper whose debut album "will be released in 2008"). Used to be a redirect to Crackerjack; I can't that it is an accepted alternative spelling for that TV series though. High on a tree 15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speedy per {{db-bio}}, as there is no assertion of notability. --Evb-wiki 15:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. GlassCobra 17:14, 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mendolia[edit]

Prod tag removed. Rationale was: "Non notable amateur football player. No evidence of notability provided. Does not meet WP:BIO for athletes." Closedmouth 14:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Wstaffor_talk 14:37, 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. --Core desat 05:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soliton Technologies Inc.[edit]

not especially notable; can't seem to find any news articles on them, they say they were first to manufacture those cameras, but I dont think that in itself is enough to justify an article Phgao 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like an ad for the company. I could not find any news articles on the company either. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this advertisement for a non-notable company. Dlabtot 19:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of this page I would like to point out that as an advertisement, this would be a dreadful exercise, since it is impossible to stumble upon this page without actively searching for it. But as for notability, it is your call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.156.115 (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dj reason[edit]

Vanity stub with no independent sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Cap'n Walker 18:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N --Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Wstaffor_talk 14:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NN Toddstreat1 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, fails MUSIC; no independent sources to support very weak claim(s) of notability (no Ghits with name & "remix"). SkierRMH 21:31, 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. --Core desat 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bristow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete Only claims to fame are as a former national chairperson of a party's youth wing and as a local councillor. The page has been previously AFDed.Timrollpickering 17:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:CSD#G4. There are no assertions that his (non-)notability has changed in the past 2 years. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:41, 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. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 20:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul VI High School[edit]

I am withdrawing the nomination. Somebody please close this. James Luftan ^contribs 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, barely any refs, seems to have been created by a student, among other things. James Luftan ^contribs 21:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article makes clear and explicit claim of notability in the form of a 28-year winning streak in cross country meets, which just ended, fully supported with a reliable and verifiable source. This is on top of the clear consensus that such schools are notable per WP:OUTCOMES. I assume only Z-class nominators are unfaimilar with this consensus. Z-class editors are also apparently unaware that Wikipedia:deletion policy requires dur diligence by nominators to edit and improve the article, a process which seems to have been ignored, in violation of Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 22:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A. I dont see anything on that document that refers to a win streak as notable. B. Please be courteous. I nominated an article and refered to a former student as "barely notable". This gives you no reason to attack me, my contributions or my intellect. Thank you. James Luftan ^contribs 22:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:deletion policy, which seems to have been violated here, presumably out of ignorance. Future violations of this policy will not be tolerated. While even a student might have recognized a 244 meet win streak as notable, it took me seconds to find an editorial that states exactly that. As a tip, treat all content regardless of its creator in good faith without any attacks in the nomination. Individuals are notable or not notable; there seems to be no "barely notable" or "Z-class" status, other than intended as a derogatory remark. Alansohn 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted the creator as a possible student because, well, isn't that COI? And you're right, I changed it, I shouldn't be derogatory toward that one alum. James Luftan ^contribs 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major school with over 1,100 students and per WP:OUTCOMES, high schools are notable and the nom has provided no reason to single this one out for deletion (being created by a student is not deletion criteria). The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Courier-Post stories about the very long cross country winning streak demonstrates further notability. --Oakshade 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep School doesn't seem especially notable, but does have some mention in reputable news sources. Also, high schools are generally not deleted as non-notable. See WP:OUTCOMES. Wstaffor_talk 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems to be notable enough, its a well written article and is better than most school articles on Wikipedia. Kevin 14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since when is being written by a student a reason for deletion? Wouldn't the students of the school have the best knowledge of the school? I mean, aren't students technically the consumers? I mean, if we consider the consumer of something a COI, then virtually EVERY article is a COI article. Smashville 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was that it seems as a guide or advertisement. As a result, I am withdrawing the nomination and will just add a clean-up tag. James Luftan ^contribs 19:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn Zedla 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a general comment, WP:OUTCOMES is no more valid of a keep excuse than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All that essay (meaning it's just an opinion, not guideline or policy) is based on past results. High school articles are no longer automatically kept since most people started to realize that schools have to pass existing notability guidelines just like any other article. I was gone from Wikipedia for most of the summer, so I don't know why people started using that essay in AFD's, but I hope admins ignore people whos only argument or main argument is "per OUTCOMES". I am not voting here, but a 28 year winning streak in track seems impressive. TJ Spyke 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you give credence to at least 2 Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions points (WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), that essay also includes WP:ONLYESSAY, an argument you are using to ignore WP:OUTCOMES. --Oakshade 22:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people I see citing OUTCOMES though only say "Keep because OUTCOMES says that high schools are notable". I don't mind people using that in their argument, but far too many people are using it to say all high schools should be kept (the section you pointed out even says that people shouldn't use that arguement). TJ Spyke 22:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates what consensus has decided over time, that consensus being that high schools are notable, even if some HS articles don't have the frequently sough secondary sources writing about them. --Oakshade 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the usefulness of OUTCOMES is that it serves as a quick help to knowing to what is likely to happen here, based on what generally happens. It's just a summary, but it's summary of our actual practice, and a good guide to what is or isn't worth sending to AfD. DGG (talk) 05:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many articles are created by students. They do not WP:OWN them though. Yamaguchi先生 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable. — RJH (talk) 18:21, 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 keep - Francis Tyers · 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protochronism[edit]

This word, or term, does not exist in the English language, nor is it recognized in any way. There has been a discussion about this on the talkpage, but the author refused to argue his case. Google gives only 564 hits, most of which come from Wikipedia. This term was transliterated from Romanian "protocronism," but as I've said: the word doesn't exist in the English language. It would be one thing if, perhaps, the article would describe the Romanian usage of the word, but the article doesn't make that clear and one remains to believe that the article refers to an English word, or term. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Thus Spake Anittas 08:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It's a known concept in Romanian culture, but it has been mentioned in many English-language books, including Verdery's book used as a reference, published at University of California Press. If you search "Protochronism" at google books, you can find 41 results, all of them discussing this concept. bogdan 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough to recognize the term as an existing one. The term does not exist in English. The books that mentioned the word does not try to introduce it to the English language. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Some of the books do explain the concept. bogdan 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It does not matter how popular the term is on google, because there is an entire literature discussing it. On one hand, if the term is used in Romanian literature and translated into at least one source that bridges the gap, it shouldn't matter if the term has acquired notoriety - since the concept itself is notorious in Romania, and since the subject is unquestionably notable on any wiki. Furthermore, the English spelling is reasonably familiar to scholars and not only, with or without the google hits. Not only, as Bogdan indicates, entire books have been written about Protochronism, using the term (and, yes, Anittas, in the "Protochronism" form), but of the 41 goggle books hits for "Protochronism", virtually all explain and discuss the concept in detail. If there was any doubt in your mind, the Romanian spelling, which reflects a smaller niche on google books, gives 37 results. Dahn 12:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this: the issue of quality by far overwhelms the issue of quantity. Not only was this article largely written from published paper sources of an academic nature, not only are the google books results academic, but, on google, one finds quite respectable sources using and defining the term (see [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). Nuff said. Dahn 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I will not let this piece of sophistry fly past me; above, Anittas wrote "It would be one thing if, perhaps, the article would describe the Romanian usage of the word, but the article doesn't make that clear and one remains to believe that the article refers to an English word, or term." Even if that were true (and, as seen above, it ain't), how is it "not providing the original word" grounds for deletion? Just because Anittas' banned user friends told him they support deleting it (note: because they happen to believe that writing originated in Romania, and this belief has the "power" to wrestle with cited sources...)? Dahn 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Anittas misidentified that IP (which is actually from Maryland) as belonging to our banned LA gangsta. :-) bogdan 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the issue may be one of WP:POINT, concerning this parallel nomination. Dahn 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Dahn and Bogdan. You may not like it, but it's a very valid topic. Incidentally, there are some bizarre theories about Hungarian origin that should probably be included in that article but I haven't got time to hunt for references today...K. Lásztocska 13:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term does not exist in the English language, regardless of how many books mention it; if, however, one must write an article about it, the article should explain that the term is only used by academics when referring to Romania, and not other countries. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article is about Romania. 2. In its largest meaning, the term is occasionally used for other countries (such as footnote 2 to page 2, here). Are we just about done? Dahn 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Academics create words all the time. There is a large academic history here, far more than necessary to satisfy WP:NOTE. Wstaffor_talk 14:48, 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 keep Acalamari 18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard H. Holm[edit]

This article does not assert notability and has no cited references. Illinois2011 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — subject won award. Meets WP:PROF, specifically criterion 6.--Agüeybaná 21:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Named chair at Harvard. Member of and award from the National Academy of Sciences. Highly cited papers. Honorary degree from U. Chicago. Very clear pass of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein 04:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as per David Eppstein. Why has this even been nominated? --Crusio 07:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep He is a notable scientist. We can find references. He is a notable chemist[21]. Masterpiece2000 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:PROF. Articles are not deleted just because they are not complete. Wstaffor_talk 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all of the above. What is the rush to delete a two-day old article on a notable topic before giving time for people to add sources? --Itub 16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable per WP:PROF. While it would be nice if new articles had their notability claims verifiable via reliable sources when the article is first created, I think we all realize that a good number of articles are simply not finished, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are not notable. The article could use some work, yes, but the claims are verifiable. Ariel♥Gold 17:59, 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 and redirect. There's nothing to merge. --Core desat 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest run public school[edit]

Well it's blank, it needs to be deleted. Pizzeria 21:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears from the article history that YOU are the one that blanked the page. That being said, Elem/Middle schools are generally non-notable and deleted, per WP:OUTCOMES. Wstaffor_talk 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Readded page content for now, you shouldn't do that until a consensus is reached. Non notable though. Kevin 16:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thornhill, Ontario locality article. WP:OUTCOMES isn't a reason to vote for deletion. – Zedla 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Thornhill, Ontario locality article as suggested. Yamaguchi先生 02:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about schools with improperly capitalized titles should be deleted because they reflect badly on those schools. --Metropolitan90 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - improper capitalization is no reason for deletion - just move the article to the correctly capitalized title! SkierRMH 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above; nothing points to notability of school as it stands as of now. SkierRMH 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable (with WP:V concerns). WP:OUTCOMES is not a guideline, and is not the reason I voteto delete. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:54, 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 Keep. Espresso Addict 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valtio[edit]

This article was speedy deleted as a hoax (which is not a CSD.) DRV overturned because the admittedly imaginary micro-nation has received press coverage for its humor value, for which, see the DRV. Deletion is on the table, given obvious notability concerns. Xoloz 13:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Creator of micronation is an employee of Radio Finland, and repeated references to the subject on Radio Finland have been made. There is also evidence, unfortunately only in Finnish, which I can't read, that the Finnish Defense Forces staged what would have to be called a military exercise to retake the "country". This exercise is I am told referred to in the Finnish Defense Forces webpage included as a reference. Again, I can't read Finnish. However, I believe that the references cited indicate that the subject almost certainly does meet the notability requirements, and that there is no just cause for deletion. John Carter 13:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's certainly not a hoax, as it's easily verifiable - albeit in multiple Finnish-language sources. It's obviously a tongue-in-cheek micronation, a bit like Elleore. However, the article does require cleanup and additional English-language references. --Gene_poole 16:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even if no English language sources are found. There is nothing wrong with basing an article off reliable foriegn language sources. J Milburn 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't notable enough for a separate article to me. Ari Peltonen is a somewhat well known person in Finland, though, so how about starting an article on Mr. Peltonen and merging what's relevant there? Paska (band) should also be merged in my opinion. --KFP (talk | contribs) 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tongue-in-cheek fictional micronation. Some notable people are associated with this joke but that does not make this worthwhile for a separate article. Merge into a footnote in Paska (band). jni 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per above. Notable, and should never have been deleted.JJJ999 02:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Vista Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally kept at its prior AfD. DRV overturned this result, but could not reach a strong consensus to delete outright. The matter is resubmitted to AfD. Deletion is on the table, particularly concerning the question of whether the sources offered in the article qualify as reliable and non-trivial. Xoloz 13:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - I read the previous AfD and noted that some added that economical impact was noteworthy. However, I cannot find it in the article. If there is a reference to the noteworthy economical impact that can be added to this article, I could see keeping it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until I get a chance to review the extranl links of the article, I cannot change my stance to "keep". However, if external links can be referenced within the text more appropriately (albeit not required for this AfD), it would make a lot easier for people to understand what is being annotated. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my comment in the DRV. All of those sources are obviously too local, many of them trivial, like "Sierra Vista Mall will hold a community outreach fair at 10 am", thus not really independent of the topic (anything, even local resturants, apartment buildings, nursing homes, local politicians (which fail WP:BIO btw, supermarkets, etc can have that many local sources). WP:HEY doesn't apply nither as the only thing added was an infobox, and the spam wasn't removed. Jbeach56 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not understand what you actually mean by too local. Is a newspaper from the same city too local. Is a publication from the City Government to local. How far away must the source be? Please explain what sources your refering to when you say "a community outreach fair at 10 am", because none of thoes have been used in the Article. WP:HEY shouldnt be a factor in any AfD because AfD is not a method for forcing an articles improovement, is it? AfD should be a place for a cross section of WP to guage if a Article Subject could be worth noting, isnt it? In this perticular case, I believe it is. I had thought my first Citations had shown that, but I hope that this new set does. Please, I ask that you reconsider. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources, one of them aren't independent (the school board one) and the last two seems to me like they copied from each other, and the area seems wrong "Sierra Vista Mall - the largest retail complex in Southeastern Arizona". Jbeach ^sup 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mall's whose name did not get any mention in the local press, that would be a notable phenomenon. There has been absolutely no clue whatsoever as to why this mall should have a wikipedia entry. It has to be proven it is notable, not that it is not, and I maintain that this mall could be deleted per A7, "no claim to notability".--victor falk 22:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but a7 is for things that do not say anything that might indicate notabiity at all, like having major stores, and only if one accept the extension of treating malls as companies) Believe it or not, there are many much sketchier mall articles, suitable for speedy as no meaningful content. DGG (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - citations being to local is not a valid reason to delete, and if it is then you had best be prepared to remove entire categories Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God I despise you people. The only reason this article is hard to expand is that available sources all have to be paid for. Kappa 07:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- please be civil. citations have been added, it just took a while to wade throuhg thousands of them finding good ones. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is based on routine coverage and asserts nothing that is out of the ordinary. ~ trialsanderrors 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US-Mexico Border Philanthropy Partnership is routine ??? And why does not being extra-ordinary not mean it it no worth noting ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that source doesn't mention this mall, it mentions one in Arizona. Jbeach ^sup 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A large regional mall is always important to its community. plenty of coverage in local press. It adds to our scope of encyclopedic coverage. Wikidemo 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything has local coverage in the press, even nursing homes, certain stores, local politicians, etc, Jbeach ^sup 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most businesses aren't covered by an article about them. But at any rate, coverage what notability tested on -- see WP:CORP. There's no exclusion for local papers at WP:CORP. I don't think we should make up a new rule to that effect, but if we do want a new rule the proper place to hash that out is on the notability pages or village pump, not the talk page for deleting a specific shopping mall. For the moment the rule is that notability is established by substantial mentions in reliable secondary sources. We have that here; hence, according to the current guidelines this mall is notable.Wikidemo 19:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire. No nontrivial sources whatsoever have been put forward by the article's proponents. Counting Google hits is not research. Merely looking at Google's summary of a hit - as was clearly done, given that multiple "sources" linked in the article, including the two of those stridently proclaimed by Exit2Dos above, are about a different mall entirely - is, if anything, worse. —Cryptic 20:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RoboticRodeo[edit]

Spammy article that fails WP:CORP. Article is unverifiable, with 73 unique ghits with no third party reliable coverage. MER-C 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The lack of third party reliable sources for this article is a major concern here. There are also issues over notability as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CORP, and the fact that all the references are to forum postings (!) written by the company's founder (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:CORP. Wstaffor_talk 15:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CORP, no reliable sources & the sources in the article are COI. SkierRMH 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is borderline CSD G11 speedy delete material is it not. Burntsauce 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John FitzGerald[edit]

plays for a club that I AfDed because it is not notable, (google gives 40 results), thus he is not notable Phgao 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep-the player in question is notable. maybe not to the vast public but he has played over 100 games for 4 different clubs & has eleven competitive goals to his name. Johnstone Burgh FCBC 1993 are notable but not well known as they have only recently become a strong team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone kicks in a few reliable sources. --Tikiwont 13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~-these sources (websites) are reliable, not too informing but still reliable http://135.196.23.137/pls/gn/V3_Club_Stats.TEAM_Results?partner_id=134&team_id=44138 http://www.paisleygazette.co.uk/article.php?sec=2&id=16199 http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=55.835899&lon=-4.492411&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2 http://paisleydistrictyfl.netfirms.com/15s_fixtures.htm http://www.scottishyouthfa.co.uk/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs) 15:15, October 19, 2007
- Are you in the right AfD? Not a single one of those links even mentions John FitzGerald. Corvus cornix 21:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 14:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- Non-notable youth player for a non-notable youth club. Simon KHFC 17:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable youth player who has not played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, no claim to notability ChrisTheDude 21:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Sebisthlm 00:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when the player fulfils the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - totally non-notable. Qwghlm 20:38, 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--JForget 00:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnstone Burgh FCBC 1993[edit]

poorly written, doesnt seem to be a notable club, google gives 40 results... Phgao 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I don't know where Phgao is from but in many parts of Scotland this is a notable & formidable football team. I'll admit they're are only 4 or 5 notable players (including John FitzGerald) and google doesn't give much about them but that doesn't mean their not a notable football team. I am currently editing the article to try and improve the quality of writing & improve the amount & quality of information given —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs) 13:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - these sources (websites) are reliable, not too informing but still reliable

http://135.196.23.137/pls/gn/V3_Club_Stats.TEAM_Results?partner_id=134&team_id=44138 http://www.paisleygazette.co.uk/article.php?sec=2&id=16199 http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=55.835899&lon=-4.492411&z=18&l=0&m=a&v=2 http://paisleydistrictyfl.netfirms.com/15s_fixtures.htm http://www.scottishyouthfa.co.uk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim to notability. Punkmorten 14:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - it does claim notability, maybe not to a worldwide standard but in the west of Scotland this team is very notable. unfortunately their notable for being rubbish, but being tremendously bad is still notable. Now they are becoming notable for being a good team —Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs) 15:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at the list of other competitors in the Paisley and District, I see that most of them are identified as U15 sides. If this is a youth league, there's no way its teams meet the notability standards for football clubs. If I'm misreading the situation, please let us know. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - While it is true the majority of this league are U-15 it is the best league of its kind with all the teams taking part being of a decent standard & the best of them feed players through to profesional teams country (such as Celtic, Aberdeen & Dundee United). This league notable as it is not just teams from near the town of Paisley as the name sugests, it include teams such as Oban Saints, who for an away game have to travel for at least 3 hours to play the team most local to them. This is becuase the P&D league takes only the best teams from this district. All the teams in this league are notable but I have chosen Johnstone Burgh because of their success in the blackpool tournament & because while other teams are declining The Burgh are getting better & better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DLB 4 eva (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. WP:NN football club. --Evb-wiki 16:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be the Boys' Club (BC) of the main Johnstone Burgh FC and are therefore non-notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long, long way from being notable. - fchd 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a regional U15 team is nowhere near passing notability standards. Simon KHFC 17:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete kids' sports team. Surely these can be speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 20:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no notability and no significance or importance to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 21:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Sebisthlm 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else, I'm sure they're a great bunch of lads, but they have no place on WP ChrisTheDude 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nominator and above comments. Qwghlm 20:38, 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 Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Fram 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half Skinned Lizard[edit]

Contested Speedy. Band that does not meet WP:MUSIC. Only web hit is their myspace page, no news articles or charting records Peripitus (Talk) 12:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 by the book. You can probably re-add speedy tags removed by the page's creator. --Pak21 12:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but once removed is usually twice removed - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong Keep Notable musicmakers. 203.221.238.239 13:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in exactly which way are they notable? --Pak21 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: meet WP:MUSIC on the deep web. 203.221.238.239 13:08, 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 keep. W.marsh 21:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multrees Walk[edit]

Contested prod. Reason was "A small shopping street in Edinburgh. No claim of encyclopedic notability is made, and none is likely to be forthcoming." Concern is still valid, Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck 12:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor shopping street, tucked away in the backstreets of Edinburgh. Lurker (said · done) 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wouldn't exactly call St Andrews Square and York Place "backstreets". --MacRusgail 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a very notable pedestrian way in the center of one of the most popular tourist destinations in Europe. It's the in depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources like The Scotsman [22], the Sunday Herald [23] and the Edinburgh Evening News [24][25][26]. A simple google search would've demonstrated this.--Oakshade 16:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very important and controversial piece of the "regeneration" of central Edinburgh. High rent shops such as Harvey Nichols and Louis Vuitton have made it their home. --MacRusgail 16:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden 19:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some famous-name luxury goods shops do not make the street notable. And the newspaper articles quoted focus almost entirely on the retailers, not the street. Still no claim of encyclopedic notability forthcoming. Jonathan Oldenbuck 13:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know what articles you're reading, but they're clearly about the walk and the retailers that are the main component of it. An upscale walk in one of the most notable cities on earth and that's the subject of secondary multiple reliable sources is not only a claim of encyclopedic notability, but easily passing this encyclopedia's core notability guidelines. --Oakshade 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ecologists[edit]

Article about a small political association linked with the new Democratic Party (Italy), with no content, no sources and a short list of mostly redlinked politicians and activists claimed as "leading members" (not a NPOV sentence in its own). I also thought about merging its content within Democratic Party (Italy), however there is no source confirming it will actually be a significative wing within the party, jointly with a recent declaration by the new party leader claiming no political wings will be accepted within it (at least not officially). Have your say. Angelo 11:28, 19 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, John254 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a tiny group, what could be written here? Pavel Vozenilek 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. WP:NOT. There are many splinter politcal groups in Italy, and cannot see how this one is notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lightsaber users[edit]

Unencyclopedic trivia. No citations to reliable sources. No assertion of notability. EEMeltonIV 11:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In-universe-only trivia. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fangamefunlistcruft? ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cite, RS, notability, etc. fancruft-a-tastic. SkierRMH 01:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a valid list, like so many others on Wikipedia. --216.47.133.102 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC) — 216.47.133.102 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of Star Wars-related Articles for Deletion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial information that is better suited for a fan wiki, not here. RobJ1981 04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Core desat 06:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift (computer game)[edit]

Article contains no establishment of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. A quick google search showed no reliable sources, reviews, mentions, awards from any reputable sources. Article exists merely on primary sources alone and is written like an advertisement Spigot Map 11:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If PlaneShift is not considered notable then similar projects like Arianne should also be considered not notable. They are in the same league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.58.179.18 (talk • contribs)
Comment: I believe it is more notable than you think. Can't say for sure, but i heard of it numerous times eventhough i am not interested in a game like that. Also, i remember it, as it used to be the most seeded, and stil is one of the most seeded torrents on miniNova. Quick look on google didn't bring up many too reliable sources either, but the coverage still seems to be pretty wide. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable freeware game not even out of "pre alpha". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as I can tell, the game itself is in beta, not pre-alpha. There seems to be a difference in status between PlaneShift-the-game and PlaneShift-the-engine, the latter of which is on SourceForge and is listed as pre-alpha. Tuxide 20:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe, but that's not what the article says: "The game is currently in the pre-alpha stage of development, at version 0.3" and their own website seems to confirm this: "At the present state of development, PlaneShift is not a complete game, but what we call a "tech demo"" A tech demo is indeed a pre-alpha release (some might even call it pre-pre-alpha. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not true. PlaneShift-the-game is definitely not pre-alpha, and neither are technology demos: It is released to the public and is quite playable. Tuxide 04:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - If so, you might want to inform the good folks at the offical website that it's been released. As of this wring it still says it's an incomplete tech demo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability, is only free in cost, and only currently. Proprietary game built upon open source engine without a production release (ever). This game has been in-development for 6years. If the game was more open, as in the licensing for the game, I might object because it would stand out. Currently, it just appears to be be another slow-development/vaporware piece of proprietary junk - thus the lack of media coverage. EvanCarroll 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to EvanCarroll If you claim it's non-notable and unverifiable, then how do you know so damn much about it? This sounds like a WP:COI here. Tuxide 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to Tuxide Everything I know is not subject to its own encyclopedia article. Thanks to the pokemon articles of the past, I know a lot of stuff that no longer qualifies for wikipedia. I know about Planeshift because I'm outraged at their marketing which exploits the synergy openness delivers for selfish gains. No one cares about a free as in beer proprietary game, that's been done before. Many care about a free as in freedom game - myself included. What I hate is they currently deliver on the free as in beer, and touch on the free as in freedom, but the game is not free! It is only free enough to confuse people. EvanCarroll 03:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every game with a fans base has a page on wikipedia in which they explain how the game works and give detail on setting, races, monsters, etc... Why PlaneShift shouldn't ? The PlaneShift page seems setup like all the other pages I see of other games, those do not contain more notable sources than PlaneShift. Also this means you want to have in the wikipedia only the very known, mass-driving titles? It's an encyclopedia made by people for the people, deleting knowledge is the worst you can do on a free enyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.17.172.185 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for the answer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed the follwoing from the article page, which I think was probably intended for here:

I can't understand why someone here wants to say PlaneShift do not exist. Here are some notable sources on the existance of PlaneShift:

http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_PlaneShift.htm

http://www.jeuvinux.net/article-51.html

http://news.mmosite.com/interview/content/2007-10-07/20071007223114402,1.shtml

http://www.psde.de/foren/offizielles/ank_ndigungen_und_neuigkeiten/interview_bersetzung

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/planeshift/review.html

and stats on characters and accounts registered per hour:

http://laanx.fragnetics.com/charsweek.png

Artw 20:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nontrivial coverage from reliable sources including about.com, GameSpot, etc. Comments like "piece of proprietary junk" and "not even out of 'pre-alpha'" are of dubious relevance to an AfD discussion (although I don't disagree). The coverage exists, and PlaneShift does seem to be at least as popular and widely discussed as Castle Marrach or Medievia. <eleland/talkedits> 22:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: coverage appears to be trivial or nonreliable. No vote. <eleland/talkedits> 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::Please point out which sources provide notability. All of them look to be fan reviews to me. The one from gamespot is not a review, it's fan comments. SpigotMap 22:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [27] looks like a recent interview (this very month) that MMOsite.com gave to the PlaneShift director. Most of the others I can't even read because they're not English. Tuxide 23:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment MMOsite.com does not appear to be a reliable source. In fact, I'd wager that no site using red text on a black background is reliable. <eleland/talkedits> 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ...what? Tuxide 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, maybe it's an artifact of the site being partially blocked by my work's firewall. But I'm seeing a black background with dark blue link texts which turn red when you click them. Awful! <eleland/talkedits> 17:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Your CSS isn't loading. I only get that when I turn CSS off. Try changing your browser's default background color to white or something so you can see the text. Tuxide 21:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going with WP:RUBBISH here, and I agree with Twsx that the coverage seems to be pretty wide. If all you want to do is find reliable sources, then AFD is not the place for this. Tuxide 03:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and improve article): I am not playing this type of game, but I followed the development of Crystal Space for several years. IMHO this is one of the most important open source/free software projects in this category (and the most important project in Crystal Space). When judging the status of the game ("alpha", "beta" etc.) one should keep in mind that free software tends to have much lower release numbers and a beta version might be more stable and playable than comparable proprietary software releases which are declared stable. Judging from the development progress I have seen in the last years I certainly do not agree with statements like "it just appears to be be another slow-development/vaporware piece of proprietary junk" (by the way: why proprietary? from the webpage: "All source code of the engine is Open Source and under GPL."). -- mkrohn 23:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then mkrohn you have no idea what you're talking about because nothing about the game is free! The engine it is built on is free and that does less good, and makes the game less open than Simcity 2000 which had a map builder. The game is not open source. Even on their own license they state that verbatim. In fact giving back to the "game" means your property (ruleset/art/dialog) will have its ownership transfered entirely to "Atomic Blue" and you *can not* even retain a copy for your own use. This is my biggest problem with this nonsense project. In other words, if you draw up a gnome and write the dialog for it you can not give a copy to Atomic Blue, and your best friend. You can not modify or redistribute your own work. You can not fork the game. You have no options outside of what Atomic Blue explicitly permits you to do, because the license is authoritarian. EvanCarroll 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - you get portfolio rights, and the license is no different then one that you would sign off on at any other serious art/development/writing house. only difference here is that you get to see it. it is called "work for hire" license/contract.64.230.31.250 01:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
  - Question to EvanCarroll If you claim it's non-notable, then how do you know so damn much about it? This sounds like a WP:COI here. Moved my comment to your post above. Tuxide 21:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "you have no idea what you're talking about because nothing about the game is free! [...] The game is not open source." - the game engine certainly is open source (just browse their csv, e.g.: [28]). AFAIK there is even a project underway to use free graphics etc. instead of their proprietary stuff. -- mkrohn 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So f***ing what? Simcity 3000 can run on Linux under wine. Does that make Simcity 3000 open source? I'll grant a small but crucial element to the game, the client/server codebase is open source. The Quake 3 engine is also open source, but the *game* is not, and will never be. A new open game created on this engine might be more noteworthy but as it stands now Planeshift is not. You must see this difference to understand the evil behind this company, you're inability to distinguish the difference between Planeshift and the client/server codebase is saddening. discussion n this matter. This is why I argue so vehemently, however to submit to wikipedia guidelines, the problem here is notability. Nothing about the "game" is notable other than the fact it has a brochure on wikipedia. EvanCarroll 03:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - So in other words, what you're saying is WP:IDONTLIKEIT because Peragro Tempus will be like PlaneShift but with a different license agreement, yet it doesn't have its own article. Even I've heard of Peragro Tempus, and I wish them the best of luck, but using this as a basis for AFD is quite silly. Tuxide 05:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying that an open mmorpg is by necessity notable, but it sure does increase the odds. Planeshift is not notable because there are no reliable sources on it: I believe this is because it is not open. Which is also the reason why I don't like it. Don't confuse the two. Does that mean anything open is notable, no there are some worthless open projects, but a project that is open and free fits my ideal of good; and, I'd say that vastly increases its notability. EvanCarroll 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Slashdot has two stories related to planeshift: Free 3D MMORPG Planeshift Ported To Mac OS X, Planeshift Enters Open Testing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco Krohn (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Tuxide 23:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The links provided above are not from reliable sources, or are trivial coverage (in Gamespot's case). Only the MMOSite link has some merit, but a single source is not enough, especially if the coverage is not directly related to the article subject. User:Krator (t c) 00:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Explain how [29] is not directly related to the article subject please. Tuxide 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's directly related, but even if mmosite.com proves to be a reliable source, about which there is some doubt, more than one such reliable source is needed. Miremare 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My question is more on notability: If sources like these can be found, whether notability can be established. Another thing is that in the gaming industry, you don't ever see open source projects being stuck in the same boat as commercial games such as Flyff, Silkroad Online, Ragnarok Online 2, etc. but for some reason PlaneShift is the odd one out. Hence this is why I am sticking with WP:RUBBISH. Within good faith I do believe PlaneShift is notable—it is clearly known outside of just a narrow interest group—and reliable sources just need to be found. I can go out and find reliable sources if I really wanted to, but real life is keeping me from doing so right now. Tuxide 03:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - An interview with a man about his work does not make the work notable. Furthermore, MMOSite's editorial standard is questionable. User:Krator (t c) 10:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I am interested in multiple sources; obviously, one is not enough. Also, I just realized that there is nothing in WP:RS saying that a source has to be in English for it to be reliable. Tuxide 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gamespot looked promising until their coverage proved to be entirely player reviews. Other than that, just fansites and gameguides. Not notable. Miremare 01:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Changed !vote due to magazine sources. Miremare 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there are several sources that indicate that the game is notable (besides that googling for "planeshift game" gives >470,000 hits):

I concede that Verifiability is an issue but this should not lead to the deletion of the article ... -- mkrohn 10:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional evidence of PlaneShift's coverage and notability (some recent, some aged):

Thus, I back up my claim that the coverage is out there. You can make up your own mind which are relevant, but clearly, claiming that there isn't any coverage out there on this topic is utter bullshit. As I said above, PlaneShift isn't put in the same boat as libre games like Tux Racer, but with commercial products. Tuxide 08:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, Gamespot DOES NOT have coverage of planeshift. The only plausible coverage of Planeshift in that list might be warcry, but it's a load of shit, normal Luca lying about the project. Furthermore, a download link on a website which... provides downloads, does not really make something notable. The magazine articles would need to be verified if they were written by the magazines or sent in by Planeshift, because they look like in some kind of "Fan mail" section. Spigot Map 11:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apepars to be notable based on all this cited coverage. • Lawrence Cohen 21:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is not subjective or temporary. The game has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources as Tuxide has shown, regardless of its phase of development. Therefore: Notable. Arakunem 22:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Weakening my Keep a bit. Got one strong source shown here, and several minimal (bordering on trivial) sources. WP:N states that in the event sources are not so strong, that more of them are required. I guess the question here is what's the cutoff for Multiple + Non-Trivial. I still think the breadth of coverage warrants a keep at this time. Arakunem 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, after spending a good 45 minutes on just this AfD, I'm strengthening my Keep back up. So far I see 2 Warcry stories of substance, spaced several months apart, 2 MMOSite stories of substance, also well spaced apart, 2 Slashdot articles of "decent blurb" size, also months apart, and a boatload of blurbs, snippets, bytes, and blogs about this game. I think the basic guideline of "Multiple, non-trivial, unrelated sources" has been met here, both in letter and in spirit. Once again, Notability is not subjective. Arakunem 23:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources provided that I have seen are trivial mentions and user-submitted articles & reviews. Additionally, there seems to be a large claim of inherited notability, in that since the engine (Crystal Space) is notable, the game is notable. However, they are two distinct animals. Despite the vigorous efforts to dig up sources, not a single non-trivial reference with appropriate editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking has been provided. Despite the vigorous endorsement of a fanbase, there seems to be little to no real-world notability for the project. This seems to be a pretty plain case of a non-notable subject. Vassyana 23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's look at these sources one at a time:
- PC Gamer: one paragraph, not significant coverage.
- Massive Online Gaming: not even prose this time, just a list of system requirements, release dates, etc. Not significant coverage.
- First Warcry Network source: An interview with the creator of the game, discussing the game. The best of the bunch.
- Second Warcry Network source: An article about Planeshift reaching 100,000 registered accounts.
- First Escapistmagazine.com source: An interview that mentions Planeshift once. Not significant coverage.
- Second Escapistmagazine.com source: A very short article about something else in which Planeshift is mentioned once. Not significant coverage.
- Gamespot.com: as mentioned above, Gamespot's coverage of Planeshift comprises player reviews and a single mention in a news piece about something else.
- Of the sources just above those ones, the dubious reliability of mmosite has been entered into somewhere up the page, and the two slashdot articles are, again, trivial. Significant coverage can't be given with two sentences, or even one paragraph talking about how the game's available for download. And the chip.de one is a download site.

The only ones that come close here are from Warcry Network - the rest are insignificant coverage. What we're left with is two articles from a single source. Makes me wonder, if Planeshift is notable and as "groundbreaking" as Warcry Network seems to believe, why is no one else covering it, and why is this the total coverage it's received in over half a decade of existence? Multiple reliable sources are needed to prove notability, and we still don't have evidence of that, so I'm sticking with "delete". Miremare 00:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only what Miremare said, but also the fact that the article itself does not only need citations of notability, but citations for the entire article. You can't use one source to cite the entire article, unless everything in the article is said in the source. Spigot Map 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As for the two MMOSite articles, one is a one-(full) pager from 2006, the other a 3 pager from 2007. Both are interviews with the game's director, by definition a First-hand source. Unless it is claimed that the interview was fraudulent (nobody here has said this, btw), then as long as the facts of that interview are valid, doesnt that make the articles reliable sources? As for Spigot's comment on placement of the citations, you are correct. But if you acknowledge that the citations given elsewhere are valid, then it's a simple matter of editing the article. Lets follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter. Arakunem 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring the site into question, though I have to say it does seem a bit forum-y to me and doesn't even say who is conducting that rather fawning interview. It could just be a press release from the developers for all we know - it certainly reads like one. I would also question the reliability and motivations of sites that interview people (twice!) about their games but give the games themselves no actual coverage - why would two sites twice interview someone about a game they obviously don't care enough about to feature in any way? That just seems a little bit suspicious if you ask me. The fact that these frankly minor sites are the only ones dedicating any kind of coverage (no matter how indirect) to Planeshift - especially given the claims to notability the game makes - speaks volumes of non-notability to me. I mean, these sources are hardly Reuters and the BBC, are they? In this day and age, a significant computer game gets a hell of a lot of coverage on the net. This one's been released in some form or another for almost six years according to the article, and all it's got to show for it is the designer being interviewed by two minor gaming sites and nothing else - and these are just interviews remember, they're not directly covering the game. This is practically zero coverage, and I really don't buy that this is a notable game. If it is, where are the reviews or previews or features from the usual reliable sources? Or from any reliable sources? I'm not comfortable with having to rely on a very few minor and/or questionable ones to prove notability, especially given the massive games coverage on the web. Miremare 01:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 2 interviews were a year apart, so a "where are you now" sort of follow up makes sense. Especially for the time that this game has been in development. And yes, I agree that a significant game should garner more attention over its dev cycle, though if I were the trade mags I'd be getting a bit impatient. But that's neither here nor there. This clearly isn't WoW. It doesn't have to be a significant game, it just has to be notable per the letter and spirit of WP:N. In my opinion, that standard has been met. Arakunem 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. This game has done nothing notable. What has this game done to pull ahead of the 1000s of other games which have been removed from Wikipedia? This game is not ground breaking, has an average player base under 100, and apparently has come almost nowhere in 6 years. 6 years in alpha stage, using someone elses Engine, beta stage after 20 years? Spigot Map 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source says 100,000. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Also, see WP:CRYSTAL. This is about right now, not speculating on the future. Nor even comparing it to the other games that have been deleted. The question here is: is there sufficient coverage of the game in multiple, non-trivial, unrelated sources? That's the only standard to consider here. My opinion based on my comments above is: yes. Arakunem 01:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The PRIMARY sources say 100,000 registered players. A quick look at the server stats, wherever they were, shows under 100 regularly playing. Spigot Map 01:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpigotMap, the number of accounts is a measurement of how many have tried the game. In comparison, World of Warcraft had just over 7,000,000 accounts toward the end of 2006. Tuxide 04:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[30] shows the amount of players online and the amount registered. Keep it mind that these accounts have probably been registered for many years. I believe the server can only support 100 players at any one time... and this is a notable MMO? Spigot Map 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

time to double check your research. the server can/has supported more and has had 200+ players on on occastion.64.230.31.250 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]

(Unindenting). Fair enough. I was unclear on which stat you had referred to. But the base standard is still: coverage in reliable sources. Not a lot of connected players, don't like the game's subscription model, disagree with the use of "open", or just don't like any other aspect of it.... thats all irrelevant to the question "Does it pass WP:N, which has nothing to do with the subscription terms, or the server capacity. So far I've seen a lot of reasons to hate the game developers and publisher, but nothing that says it doesn't pass WP:N. Arakunem 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It told why it doesn't pass [{WP:N]] is because it does not contain significant coverage, is nothing new, and is unlikely to contribute anything to the world. Spigot Map 02:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:N. It doesn't say anything about "nothing new" or "likely to contribute anything to the world". The only relevant issue is the lack of coverage. JoshuaZ 02:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Those things fall under other policies/guidelines, which come up if the article survives AfD. Spigot Map 02:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yet more evidence of PlaneShift's notability and coverage, in addition to the plethora of URLs above:
- PC Action magazine (Italian version) review of four pages, first page shown in scan, July 2003; unfortunately, what's lacking is a good English translation.
- Linux Format magazine, Issue 64, March 2005 also mentions the game, but I cannot view the article myself so I don't know what it says.

Tuxide 06:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far, one potential article indicating notability has been found (the Italian PC Action magazine, whose reliability I'm unfamiliar with and whose article content is uncertain even by the posting editor), after serious digging by "keep" proponents. The remainder are plainly unreliable, trivial mentions and/or user-submitted articles & reviews. Additionally, sources indicating existence are not the end-all be-all. Does even the one potentially reliable source indicate the subject is notable? How and why? To be a bit blunt, I'm flabbergasted (and frankly horrified) at the lack of understanding about basic notability and reliability demonstrated in this discussion. Vassyana 06:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not my fault that not too many people are doing any serious digging here. As I said before, WP:RUBBISH; furthermore, articles are not trivial merely because they're only available in paper form. Hell, even Wikipedia was willing to delete an article and restore it to its stub status by going off of a mere newspaper scan suggesting that it was the subject of a defamation lawsuit. Tuxide 08:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- actually two since PC Gamer, October 2001 http://www.planeshift.it/pix/PSinPCgamer_small.jpg, counts as well. and the fact the it is in the news article list of linux format uk puts it most likely to three. but i wonder if there isn't some creeping goal post going on. for every reference that is found the goal post is moved back. with the latest being "i don't know the reference so it doesn't count." i'm beginning to wonder if any reference short of the times or <insert deity> here saying planeshift is notable.64.230.31.250 11:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
- Plus 4 online articles from 2 sources that are significant among all the other listed sidebars, fan reviews, and download sites. (I recognize there may be some concern about the reliability of MMOSite as a source, but its articles are both interviews with a Primary Source. If George Bush gave an interview to a High School newspaper, I'm sure it would be quoted in the NY Times.) I also agree with Vassyana about there being issues with recognizing the fundamental notability criteria. If I may wax pedantic yet again, Notability has nothing to do with "fame, importance, or popularity" (direct quote from WP:N). Nothing to do with marketing, licensing, subscriber base, simultaneous users, etc. The only question that should be posed is: Do the sources provided, taken as a whole, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There is naturally some discussion and differences of opinion over that, which is why we are here after all, but a large chunk of the discussion is focusing elsewhere. Arakunem 13:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - https://www.linux-magazine.es/issue/18/Planeshift.pdf second external nontrival ref. spanish version of linux-magazine do we finally win and kill the notability debate or is the goal post going to be moved again?206.126.170.20 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)steuben[reply]
so the game supertux, pingus, lincity and many more SMALL and relatively unknown games ARE NOTABLE? yet this big game in comparisson is NOT NOTABLE? Some people are just twits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.167.181.28 (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have read through some of the criticism here, and I will give some comments. First of all, there is a discussion about the game's "notability". Apparently notability is defined as "the game needs to have a lot of articles about it, made by big and known game websites". I, however, define "notable" as "the game is in very active development, has 200 online players every given time of the day and has a flourishing community". The Planeshift team releases a new version every two to three months, the forums and it's IRC channels are very busy and the game server is always populated. Indeed, the person above me notes that even games like SuperTux have their own page and are "notable". You cannot defend Planeshift being "not notable" in any way. Secondly, someone commented on Planeshift's "horrible marketing". I can dismiss this right away as Planeshift *has no marketing* to speak of as it's not a commercial game! It only spreads through happy players, "not notable" wiki particles and various mentions on websites. Thus, I ask what's so wrong about Planeshift's marketing that someone wants to delete this whole article because of it. That person does say, however, that Planeshift is free as in "free beer" and not as in "freedom". First of all you Point of View about how free Planeshift should be is not in any way related to the right of existence of this article, remember that! Secondly, Planeshift's "freeness" and it's license are not confusing. Let me work this out a bit. First of all you have the Open Source 3D engine Crystal Space and entity manager CEL. Both 100% open source and quite notable as they've just engaged in the Orange Game project with the Blender Foundation. On top of that builds the Planeshift engine. This is simply the code for the MMORPG. To make sure Planeshift as a game stays unique and nobody uses the art for his own project, the Art is released under a separate license. The art is made by Planeshift players for Planeshift and stays with Planeshift. There's nothing confusing about that. I noted quite some hostility and emotionalness in this discussion and almost 0 rational neutral arguments. If anybody else has any questions, complaints, or whatever. Please throw them at me, I'll be happy to reply. --86.82.249.66 10:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Supertux and the others may or may not be notable - if not, they'll eventually get AfD'd too. However their presence, or that of any other articles, has no bearing on the inclusion of this article - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Every article has to prove its own notability per the criteria laid out at WP:N. As for the sources, the Italian magazine is by far the best one - significant coverage in a reliable mainstream independent source - and is in stark contrast to the best of the others, which are pretty shaky. Maybe Planeshift is more popular in Italy than in the English-speaking world? I can't see any other reason for this big difference in quality of coverage... But is there a quantity too? Foreign language sources are perfectly acceptable, so maybe if someone can find another Italian (or whatever language) source we can unequivocally prove notability. Miremare 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other than the articles listed here, I've seen mentions of this game in PC gaming magazines before; that's the reason why I downloaded a copy a couple of years ago (and then deleted it after a few days as it didn't do much). To be perfectly frank, this discussion reads as though some people have a personal vendetta against the game, rather than whether the article is about a subject notable enough to include. Mark Grant 15:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of non-trivial third party sources about the subject. There are none. Burntsauce 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Burntsauce, what "non-trivial third party sources" are you talking about? Is it COMPULSORY for a game to reach the frontpage of gamespy.com before it can have an article? Please stop with the short "delete because x" comments and start making sense! --86.82.249.66 17:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary section break[edit]

General comment on notability: Wikipedia policies on notabiliy exist for a reason. Actually, "notability" is something of a misnomer; what is at issue is not whether a given topic is important, significant, worthwhile, etc. It's a question of whether an encyclopedia article can plausibly be written about the subject without resorting to original research or excessive reliance on sources closely associated with the subject of the article. Numerical thresholds are generally not used as evidence for or against notability. For instance, a minor YouTube celebrity may have attracted 250,000 views and 0.0 mentions in reliable published sources outside YouTube. Conversely, someone who posts an incredibly offensive or shocking video (think Bud Dwyer) may attract only a few hundred views before being taken down, but be extensively covered in reliable published sources. The second person is considered "notable" for WP purposes, the first is not. This problem is especially acute when the only source for the number is the subject of the article itself!
If an article can only be sourced to its own subject, a smattering of profiles in fairly obscure websites, and a handful of brief, trivial mentions in sources of decent reliability, then it's reasonable to question whether the article meets our notability guidelines. Seemingly hostile questioning of these policies, or of those who vote to apply them, will not address such a notability problem. The proper way to address it is by finding more and better sources and incorporating them into the article. This would be a much more productive use of everyone's time. <eleland/talkedits> 18:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has really just lost its way, and this whole discussion is proof of it. This Article was started in January 2003, and been edited ever since, it was classed by people then as notabl and others had no problem with its notability, yet now in October 2007 it has been classed as not notable due to some daft red tape? I have seen the game mentioned in Linux magazines loads of times, how can it not be important enough to have an article there are 1000s of small unknown things to the majority of people in this encylopedia, Wikipedia is NOT paper and this is why Wikipedia was great almost everything ever known could be added and written about. IMO if you delete this article Wikipedia has truly lost its way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.211.112 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eleland, if Wikipedia is suddenly changing its policy then this wouldn't bother me. The problem here is, that Planeshift apparently isn't "notable" enough per the policy you mentioned. But then why is something like SuperTux notable enough? Did it have extensive media coverage? If a subject needs to have extensive media coverage before it is allowed, then you should probably have to delete 75% of Wikipedia's articles, not just this one. So again, try to explain to me why practically all game-articles on Wikipedia are notable, except this one. And, I must add, that Planeshift isn't covered on just obscure and very old webpages. The fact that this argument is used over and over again by the ones who are for deletion suggests that you undertake no effort at all to preserve this article. --86.82.249.66 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: from what I can see, some of the other games mentioned here would almost certainly fail the notability test and could or should be AFD-ed; so their existence is not an argument for keeping this one. What puzzles me is the number of people claiming that Planeshift is non-notable given the amount of coverage I've seen over the years in PC gaming magazines (but, of course there's no way to link to old paper magazines which I no longer own... being on the web shouldn't be a requirement for notability). Mark Grant 20:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Restatement Being on the web has nothing to do with notability, but who cares what you think you read years ago. If you know what you read, and where you read it, go find a copy online or at a library and source it. This game is what 10years old by one devs remarks at a fan site. That means in 10years of planeshift, no one has supplied a non-trivial article that doesn't consist of user input from a non-fan site. EvanCarroll 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yep, the first few links way way up there are pretty trivial, but if you start at the bottom of the page, the links that have been recently added surely demonstrate that WP:N has been met. I count 5 seperate (un-related) sources that give non-trivial coverage (defined as no original research beyond the source given is needed to understand the subject), with 2 of the sources covering the game on several occasions, and months apart. Arakunem 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which five sources are these? Excluding the fansites and trivial mentions, there are the four interviews (from only two sources), which IMO are a little on the dodgy side for providing notability for the game itself, being interviews with the developer rather than features on the game, and one of which mentions the game a grand total of once. The Italian magazine is the only good source I can see here. Miremare 22:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Italian Magazine [31]
    - Warcry Interview [32]
    - Warcry Article on user adoption [33]
    - MMOSite (the dodgy one, but a Primary Source interview) Interview from Oct 07 [34]
    - MMOSite interview from March 06 [35]
    - Linux Magazine (Spanish, but the Italian one was accepted, so...) [36]
    - Ok, so there's even 6. Even taking out all 3 interview articles, you still have 3. However, I think the interviews do constitue appropriate coverage, since they are not published in an outlet affiliated with the subject. Then there's 3 or 4 "FYI/DYK" kind of sidebar blurbs, and then the rest of the above being download sites and fan reviews. Surely this is more than slightly suggesting "multiple non-trivial independant coverage". Arakunem 22:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see there's a Spanish magazine source too (didn't notice it mentioned further up for some reason). As far as notability is concerned, this and the Italian magazine do it for me. The others still don't, but don't need to now I think. Changing to Keep. Miremare 23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7, no assertion of notability and no reason to expect one to come to light. —Verrai 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend skills[edit]

unremarkable youtube animation. Author of article is also the creator of the animation. A^RendedWinter 10:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom & {{db-web}}. No assertion of notability. --Evb-wiki 12:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7/nn web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 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 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Kelly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article has survived an AfD in December 20056, but it seems to me that it needs to be reconsidered. Looking through the sources, and discounting blogs and articles in which the name "Kelly" does not appear, it seems that the subject is notable only for one event, namely generating some news coverage when being fired by Crikey. While the article may be verifiable in most of its parts, it seems to fail the notability criteria. Also, from comments on the talk page, and from the fact that the picture seems to be rather a private photo - taken at a corporate christmas party -, I suspect that we have WP:COI issues here. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination outlines the problems. There is one event, a firing, that approaches notability. It fails WP:BIO. --Stormbay 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because even if the article was started by his girlfriend and was very poor quality (and still isn't great) the main stream media have written about him enough to make him notable. I added the full text of the Crikey article about sacking him so you can see that ref (since you normally need a subscription to read it): Talk:Hugo Kelly#The 'Vale Hugo Kelly' article Donama 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable bio. Having a small readership and generating a little buzz for getting fired does not equal notability. -- No Guru 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some claim to notability but not notable enough for mine. Most Google News Archives hits are about a boxer from the early 1900s who warrants an article. [37] Capitalistroadster 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't know how it's considered in Australia, but I;'d think that if he's notable enough that several major australian publications think his getting fired is worth articles, then he's notable. DGG (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep Borderline notable and sources (even dead tree ones) will be found. COI, while a concern, isn't a reason to delete unless the article is irretrievably poor. This one is not that bad. Notability extends to more than just his sacking to his role in the formation of Crikey. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, COI is not a direct reason for deletion; but since the article has originally been created by someone directly related to the subject, apparently (ab)using Wikipedia as a soapbox, we should be double careful to attribute everything to reliable sources. (Note that the source pasted to the talk page even mentions the Wiki entry.) Is there any relevant press coverage about him that is not directly related to the Crikey incident - i.e. before that or substantially after that (it's a while ago now)? If not, I would rather see WP:BLP1E applied. --B. Wolterding 09:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, COI is not a reason to delete. On the subject of notability though, I don't see getting fired, even from a high-profile site like Crikey, as reaching the bar. Lankiveil 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wikipedia isn't a repository of term papers. If the article creator wants the content for his own personal use, feel free to let me know. --Core desat 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Collapse of Westpoint Financial Services[edit]

Contested prod. The author admits that this article is original research - see the Talk page. I originally tagged it as a POV essay, which it now turns out to be. It might be possible to stubify it but as it stands it fails WP policies. andy 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is written like a soapbox article. Any NPOV expansion can be added to the Westpoint Corporation article. -- Whpq 12:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author, this article is a paper I have written for an assessment at University and part of it was we had to post it on Wikipedia as it is an Ethics unit. The paper was intensely researched by myself, for weeks before I commenced writing it. It is a presentation of the actual facts of the collapse of Westpoint, researched through The Australian Securities and Investment website (ASIC) I have not at any stage offered my point of view, all I have done is present the facts as researched, through the ASIC website. I have then explained three ethical concepts that are relevant to the collapse of the company, Stakeholders, Teleopathy and Dirty Hands. Again, I have not put in my point of view, I have presented facts only. I do not understand why this article is presenting so much of a problem, I edited as was requested by Wikipedia. Further, I have never used Wikipedia before, all the editing and such is new to me, the only reason I put this article on this site is because I had to for University. What else must I do to keep this article here until it is marked by my lecturer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkee76 (talk • contribs)
DeleteThis is the 2nd time I have seen this Today. Wikipedia is not a tool to be used be by universities. I think we need to start contacting professors who are making students do this.Ridernyc 05:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student essays such as this should not be included in Wikipedia per WP:NOT#OR. I suggest that the article creator e-mail the lecturer to let him know that the essay has been posted to Wikipedia but is now up for deletion, and that the other students' essays are likely to be deleted too. --Metropolitan90 05:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be glad to help explain things to the instructor if the author will contact me by email. DGG (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 08:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation as a proper Wikipedia article. It's a notable subject and it would be useful to have an encyclopedic article. Note to author: please learn and follow Wikipedia content policies and style guidelines. There's plenty in the current article from which a proper article could be built.Wikidemo 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ectorallin[edit]

Seems to be original research. A google search for the term "Ectorallin" returns no matches [38] A^RendedWinter 09:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, when you say that Ectorallin brings up no results in Google. However there are no webpages on it, it is graddually being considered a technique used in music or found in music. It is under scientific clarification and study on exactly how it makes our minds react to music.

This page may be a reference point for people learning about Ectorallin and will be a place to shoe future studies.

You are also right - it is almost original research, but it is becoming more popular.

You have every right to delete this page as the whole world has not heard of it. But they may become more interested in what and how it works by having the page on Wiki.

Thanks a lot-

VD VerticalDonkey 10:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article and it now fits in more with Wiki's guidlines.

Also, I reccomend as a category, maybe musical techniques? If there is one. Or perhaps Musicn on it's own.

Cheer VerticalDonkey 11:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, without reliable sources this page looks entirely like original research, which is not allowed on wikipedia. Where did you get this information from? Without sources, my view would be delete. bikeable (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. NawlinWiki 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR with no reliable sources. SkierRMH 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, right, there are no reliable resourses on the net. However you may find that there are some books that contain this information. However, I do not know how to reference book on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VerticalDonkey (talk • contribs) 07:10, 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. --Core desat 05:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KI (fictional device)[edit]

Another spin off of a game article. Reads like a game guide, and asserts no real world notability. Ridernyc 09:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a token or device like any other fictional one. No refs or cites. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can always be recreated if sources demonstrating notability are found. SolidPlaid 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balkoth[edit]

Character from a video game. This article on one character is longer then the article about the game. Ridernyc 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure original research as far as I can tell. Please delete at your earliest convenience. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, non-notable character from game.SkierRMH 01:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR might be a bit harsh but as article has no primary or secondary sources, notability is not proven. --Gavin Collins 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Rray 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 06:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatecarpage.com[edit]

One not particularly good reference does not make a site notable. Pak21 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Having been linked to on Autoblog (which is itself a pretty shabby article, by the way) once does not confer notability in any way, shape, or form, and there's no other reason I see that this would be a notable web site. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to satisfy WP:WEB criteria. No reliable independent coverage. shoeofdeath 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nonsense (pro-choice and pro-wife?), and a good part of this is a copyvio from The Literary Mind. —Verrai 19:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic style[edit]

A "new written animal". Apart from one linkless reference there is no evidence that this species/breed is at all notable. -- RHaworth 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article itself, in one of its sillier passages, concludes that "there is not enough evidence for the existence of classic prose". (The reference is completely irrelevant; according to Google Books, the phrase "classic style" does not appear in The Literary Mind.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NONSENSE. --Evb-wiki 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made-up neologism. NawlinWiki 19:00, 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. --Core desat 05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flirt fruit[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE and strangely even WP:V, since there are no independent sources indicating that this does exist[39],[40]. If no one has ever written about it, Wikipedia is not the place to start doing that. We are a tertiary source, not a secondary one. Fram 07:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unattributed and non-notable. Carlosguitar 10:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, Aldi does have some exclusive foods (I have a box of their tea), but I can't imagine what can really be said about them, making this article unexpandable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC

Delete Non notable sweets, and the article doesn't cover any information, and how do we know these sweets exist? (Clawsofmidnight 16:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep if reliable sources can be located, otherwise delete for now. Yamaguchi先生 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both Aldi and Lidl have numerous 'knock-off' products effectively copied from brand-name rivals and other cheap (as in affordable) products sold from their stores. There's no indication that these are more notable than Starblind's tea bags (which I hope is not opening a tin of WP:BEANS) >.< Someone another 12:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no legit Ghits (porno-related don't count ;) and no other reliable sources... SkierRMH 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all we know this is a Photoshopped hoax. Where are the sources? Burntsauce 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_katz[edit]

Copied from source; wrong format, etc. JBFrenchhorn 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup and source. The basic gist of it is true (see this) and notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this information may be true. But, this is definitely a copyvio. Unless someone is going to take on actually writing an article and not copying one, this article should be removed. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not properly sourced, and nevertheless the subject doesn't seem notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've added IMDB listing & correct reference to magazine cited, but still not 100% convinced of notability per RS. SkierRMH 02:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a LACK OF NON-TRIVIAL third party sources about the subject. Burntsauce 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per BlindEagle. TGreenburgPR 21:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Duncan[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:N. Unsourced article that reads like an ad. Torc2 06:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the fiddler actually revolutionized fiddling like the article claims, I would consider keeping the article for that one notable fact. However, there are no refs or cites to back up that claim. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is brutal, the artist has won six - count'em, SIX - Academy of Country Music awards since 1996. (Go here and navigate into the Awards section - it's a downloadable spreadsheet.) They don't give those out lightly. He's also apparently played with a lot of big names, so I think he probably nudges above WP:MUSIC. Keep. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article, detailing his awards. Clarityfiend 03:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- I would like to withdraw this nomination given the additional information. Good job on that! Torc2 03:36, 21 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, John254 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er... why the relist here? The keep immediately above is the nominator, withdrawing... Tony Fox (arf!) 03:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 16:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of string quartets by composer: B[edit]

AfDs for this article:

These (I am nominating three) articles were apparently part of an aborted attempt to list string quartets using a series of alphabetical articles. Of that attempt apparently only three pages were ever created, probably because the concept was rendered totally redundant by the article List of string quartet composers and the category Category:Compositions for string quartet. These pages are pointless leftovers from a good idea that some one else already thought of. There is no point in keeping these orphaned “B” “G” and “M” articles (the only ones still remaining). S.dedalus 06:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of an attempted set of alphabetical list articles:

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus 06:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torc2 06:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Let's put them to rest, the idea that supported their creation has abandoned them a long time ago.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obsolete idea. Xoloz 13:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a good concept that just didn't pan out; RIP for the orphans. SkierRMH 02:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:55, 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. --Core desat 05:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of early European musique concrète experimentalists[edit]

An unsourced “list” composed of four composers. The article is rendered totally redundant by the list of composers already added to the musique concrete article and by categories like Category:Electroacoustic music composers. S.dedalus 06:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torc2 06:42, 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. --Core desat 05:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of free jazz musicians[edit]

An unsourced list of a few Jazz musicians. The article is rendered totally redundant by Category:Free jazz musicians. S.dedalus 06:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --S.dedalus 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Torc2 06:37, 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 as attack page. Resurgent insurgent 05:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea michaelis[edit]

Does not make any particularly solid claim to notability. Teen who died of drug overdose. i kan reed 05:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not consistant with google search results; title written with last name lowercase. VoL†ro/\/Force 05:23, 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. --Core desat 05:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Trapp[edit]

Mayor of a little town, totally unreferenced and nothing to demonstrate that he is notable, other than being the mayor of this town; speedy delete tag removed by third party Nyttend 04:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, far below WP:BIO. (The town he's mayor of comprises 57 persons.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, LOL, very unnotable. Kevin 14:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN unless evidence of notability is presented (Mayor of a town with a population of 57 not withstanding). [[Guest9999 23:11, 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 speedy delete, attack page. And the odds of it surviving were nonexistant. —Verrai 04:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of political slurs[edit]

Delete although the list is just starting - it can be no more than subjective WP:OR - what's a slur? in whose opinion? and what usages qualify - I heard Pete Stark allude to some very conservative Republican senators as "nearly communists" sarcastically, so now is "nearly communist" a slur for conservative republicans? or is it a compliment? only OR can say for sure. Carlossuarez46 04:01, 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. --Core desat 05:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GROL[edit]

WP:NN on-line gaming only WP:NEO. "The term started it's circulation ... on October 18, 2007] ..." Delete. Evb-wiki 03:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete if not speedy. It may be worthy of an article in a year or two, but 24 hours after first usage is a bit quick for internet stuff. 6 ghits, 0 gnews when spelled out and "" [41]. Heroically fails WP:N. Horrorshowj 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that red ring of death is itself a redirect to Xbox 360 technical problems, which only mentions the term in passing, an article on this newer term (rather than on the technical difficulties - or, in fact, the lack of technical difficulties - it represents) is probably premature. Zetawoof_(ζ) 09:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be safe to go ahead and Delete this now that the article's creator, "Twistednoob" has been kind enough to "open editing to others". Thanks so much. NeoFreak 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RETAIN article! This is already catching on, and I had no idea what others were talking about until I found it on Wikipedia. Usage is spreading fast on 360 related sites, including Unscripted360.com's forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.50.249 (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to any reliable sources which document its usage? Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Boy Band[edit]

If true and sourced, their claims would likely make them notable, but I could find little on google about this band, much less reliable sources for their existence much less their tv appearances and affiliation with The Prince's Trust. A possible hoax? Carlossuarez46 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

** The Atlanta Boy Band page is not an hoax, this page has been an entry for a period in Wikpideia without question, previously under the name Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band.

delete- dunno bout hoax, but serious COI and POV issues for starters, and unref. Single purpose account.JJJ999 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You state serious statements have been made, all can be verified, it is serious the comments you have made to the information published on the Atlanta Boy Band page not being truthful - We hope that you will accept it is the truth.

...........................

Reply on behalf of the Members of Atlanta and The Groups Manager:

All information can be fully verified and we are under advice that the statements made accusing these statements not to be true are and an attack on the personal character of the Manager and Members of the Group Atlanta.

The MD/Station Director of Radio City in the UK can confirm all statements made. Video evidence is available of all TV appearances, cuttings of all magazine appearances are also kept. During the early days of Atlanta the Internet was not then widely used and again "under advice" we are informed that Internet research is not acceptable as a only source in law.

We trust after the ATLANTA page has been up for quite a period of time here on Wikipedia (it used to be listed as Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band), also the same on myspace, that Wikipedia will not agree to these two requests to delete. Also we hope that persons who have made accusations will look at our myspace and please withdraw their statements in a conciliatory way, thanks.

Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 12:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)John B Sheffield —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are provided before the end of this AfD discussion. And block the article's creator for the veiled legal threat above and the more explicit one here if they aren't retracted posthaste. Deor 13:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable sources. I would point out that in the years since 1997, some publications have posted archives of articles published before 1997. Thus, whether any press coverage of this band appeared online at the time, it could have been republished online since then. Due to the fact that the band's name is a well-known city as well as the name of a different musical group, I am not going to try to Google them. Rather, the burden of proof is on the supporters of this article to provide evidence. (In the unlikely event this article is kept, it should be moved to something like Atlanta (boy band).) --Metropolitan90 13:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search for Atlanta +"boy band" +Liverpool gets zero hits. Deor 14:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the notable claims can be verified and referenced, I could see keeping this article (albeit in incredibly bad shape as far as an article goes). If references can be provided (which I could not find on Google), I would change my opinion. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems in withdrawing any "legal threat" - but you have to please put yourself in the position and how it can feel, when you are accused of telling "lies" on a public website, when it is completely the truth, especially when you have a professional reputation in commercial radio and music management all you life since leaving school.

JBS Management can be found on Google, if you have access to Music Directories (which all libraries hold) you will also see the entry lists Atlanta as an artist managed. Google Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band on Google, will bring up my own myspace page (John B) which has reference to Atlanta. Google Kainam on Google and you will see the website that GARY MAHONEY is lead vocalist in now, Gary was lead singer of ATLANTA - on the ATLANTA myspace page you will find a track that Gary both wrote and was recorded by the Group. If you check out the Number One Classical Album by Russell Watson, "One Voice" you will see the track that Gary Mahoney wrote and featured on the album and as a single, they writers are Mahoney/Gordon/Watson - A Gordon was the track and album producer, Russell Watson did the Italian translation. I hope everyone can now all agree if this was a hoax or lies, it has been well planned.

The photo used here on Wikipedia shows ATLANTA on the CBBC BIG BASH at Birmingham NEC, on the Atlanta myspace page, the front page photograph shows the same members of the group with KEY 103 the radio station for Manchester and the North West. We have video recorded from Granada TV (also broadcast on LWT) the documentary on the group and all magazine cuttings, unfortunately teen magazine such as MIZZ don't keep a archive on the Internet.

Comment - I don't think you are reading the comments being made about this article or the annotations made within the article. You need to provide verifiable, secondary sources for the claims that are made. If the band appeared in magazines, cite the magazines, TV shows, books, radio programs etc. just like you'd do in any good article. They do not all have to be from websites. Look here for some information that may be helpful to you. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Keep in mind that what many Wikipedia editors will be looking for is specific citations -- which would include not just the publication name, but the date of the article, the title of the article, the author's name, and the page number. This will make verification of your sources much easier. Please keep in mind that this discussion is supposed to last five days, but the earlier you start producing such citations, the more likely it is that people will start recommending "keep" instead of "delete". Also, if you have no problem withdrawing your legal threats, then please go ahead and withdraw them by deleting those threats or striking the threats out. --Metropolitan90 04:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is pleasing to see that one person is willing to put forward a solution which is appreciated, that the name be changed to Atlanta (Boy Band) which is most sensible and acceptable.

In association with members of the group who first worked on this page we have done everything possible to allay fears of lies and deceit that we have been accused of -if every entry on Wikipedia was put to so much investigation it would be a much smaller base. We hope this matter can be satisfactory be brought to a conclusion for both sides, we Gary Mahoney, Denny Mahoney, Jamie Greaves, Neil Haskins and Manager John B Sheffield would never do anything to mislead or upset anyone.

Many Thanks John B Sheffield Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 16:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment generally speaking self promoting websites and mySpace sites are not good sources for references. If you have any newspaper, radio or TV websites that can be referenced in your article, it would help. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to say thanks for your contributions, The Liverpool Echo and The Daily Post backed and supported the group from day one, with many photographs and articles, but Internet archives do not seem to go back so far or cover everything published it is the same with teen magazines, they only keep current details. Radio Stations on the web don't even keep such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Look... if you're not going to put forth the effort to reference the accomplishments of the band to substantiate notability which is required for this article to stay, it is going to get deleted. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless independent, reliable sources showing notability are provided. Nuttah68 17:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have never claimed "notability" - just an unsigned group that achieved a lot - which many bands/groups of the time didn't, this we feel says a lot about the hard work put in, we travelled 93,000 miles in the UK, this was the time before instant success of such as "X Factor" - We have given an independent source the Managing Director Radio City, one of the UK's top five radio stations. I would gladly welcome anyone who can offer Proof that anything said is lies or untruth? - Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 17:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

Comment Notability for Bands is defined here. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing everything physically possible, but it is a Friday evening, offices and contacts are now closed until Monday, I will endeavour to find information to substantiate our rightful claims. If after this page has been up for so long it is taken down so quickly it will be a sad reflection on WIKIPEDIA, also that the few complaints received have done this without being patient. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 17:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)JBS

Comment. Verifiable notability through independent reliable sources is a basic requirement of Wikipedia. Whether you claim notability or not, you must show it for the article to stay. Claims of 'x will back us up' are of no use. Nuttah68 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And please drop the stuff about this article's having "been up for so long." You created the article three days ago. The only thing that existed previously was the version on your user page. Deor 18:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the user page has only been up for a month or so as well. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 18:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I felt the "user" page had been up for much longer than a month, yes it is fully correct the Atlanta Boy Band page has only been up for a few days. When you are new to Wikipedia, it is a lot to take in and helpful advice/help will always be appreciated. I would like the page to be as suggested Atlanta (Boy Band) Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)JBS

We have all the published evidence to prove any claims, just because they are not on the internet does not make them not truthful, in fact the internet is not accepted as fully truthful. If every entry on WIKIPEDIA was questioned in this way as we have not many would still be published on the site. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

Comment. This is not a court of law, it is Wikipedia. Numerous people have now pointed you in the direction of the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia and those are what the article needs to meet. As for the other argument, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nuttah68 17:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated clearly above we are doing everything physically possible and we will Fully Substantiate all claims/statement we have made. Wikipedia is as you state not a court of law, but I also hope and trust that it is not a place trying to drive away people who have worked hard being allowed to state their achievements, none of us would like to see a kangaroo court culture, hounding me off and ATLANTA when all we have done is state the truth and nothing but the truth! - sorry but I am going to have to call it a day for now, I have worked on this non stop for many hours now - I hope WIKIPDEIA will understand Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 17:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

Delete per every nom above. Also, I'd like to mention, if you do believe there were reliable sources available at one point in history on the internet, try http://www.archive.org/. It has archives going back to 1996. I don't know how reliable anything found in this would be (Eg, not sure if anything found could be classed as a source), but it might help. A^RendedWinter 18:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had the pleasure of being a member of the group, Anyone with a problem over authenticity can check out the following facebook groups - 'bring back the 90s boybands' and 'craving 90s boybands' were ATLANTA are not only mentioned but also Photographed. I admit this isnt HARD SOLID EVIDENCE blah, blah blah,, but hey we were not signed. If you can be bothered to stop trawling Web based Encyclopedia sites like Wikipedia looking for 'hoaxers and jokers' then contact Mizz Magazine themselves 01892 500 100 and mention our affiliations with them between 1994-1996 on their teenage based National Roadshows. If your that bothered then contact us via the Atlanta myspace page with your email address and we will supply you with 'scanned' media in which we appeared.

CHE PALLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfboy de roma (talk • contribs) 18:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - perhaps you could contribute to the article by citing references. Your comments above are not helpful as secondary, verifiable sources are required in establishing notability. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt it be breach of copyright to post 'scans'? I would be more than happy to attach all published/broadcast media to this article. I also trawled archive.org but found no such relevance.

As a matter of interest I recently tried to research my grandfather who was killed in WW2 when his ship was torpedoed by a German U-Boat. The U-Boat that destroyed his ship was the first to use acoustic technology, a massive development in maritime Warfare. It also carried the unique story of the ship picking up a survivor from another torpedoed boat only for the same man to be only one of two survivors from my Grandfathers ship, (torpedoed twice!). How well is this piece of history remembered?? Apart from a handfull of awful repeated web sites and the Commonwealth War Graves Commision there is nothing. Wikipedia has a misely article on this incident and if you search HMS ITCHEN you can also see that this does have 'references' associated but on greater inspection they are nothing more than just re-hashed copies.(albeit from reliable sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfboy de roma (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you have newpaper articles, you don't need to scan them in; you just need to reference them. Please read the above posts to see how to do that. Also I'm unsure what your WWII annotation has to do with anything. Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as well. Also, please sign your posts. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT We can provide dates and times for each article published and broadcast stating each publication and programme. This will be done from our own archives this weekend and if anyone needs to see copies of these sources we would be more than happy to oblige. My WW2 annotation has nothing to do with this, just mereley a point of how unruled, misinformed and uninformed the world wide web can be, especialy pre Internet. Atlanta Boy Band page is a reference to an unsigned band and although none of our recording material is within the public domain and we no longer gig - I AM, I WAS...... WolfboyDeRoma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.115.138 (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remember that you need to have notability. Follow the guidelines there to show that the band is notable. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 20:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, not all sources are online. If they can provide reliable sources with dates and titles, we should assume those sources are accurate unless someone actually looks them up in a library in order to discredit them. Mango juice^talk 20:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please review my previous comments about making references to the articles and such. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 21:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I mistook your worry about notability for a worry about sources. I think if there are sources, the band might be notable regardless of the success standards described at WP:BAND. Mango juice^talk 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... the article creator, a clear COI and SPA, specifically declines to claim the band is notable. Unless we're changing wikipedia to include articles on non-notable topics, I'm not sure why this is contraversial? The only implication of notability is the claim that they were on all major commercial stations, and in Atlanta, all of the major commercial stations that I was listening to in the 90's had local "underground" shows, so the claim is entirely compatible with being non-notable -- the notability standard requires the band to be in the rotation nationally. Speedy A7.

Deltopia 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I later accepted fully on being directed to the Wikipedia "notability" conditions that we do meet many of them. Also ATLANTA(Boy Band) are UK based and from Liverpool not the USA. I know there own written material was played on the radio as I worked for 21 years with Radio City. Each radio station that interviewed them played one of their own written tracks, so as no copyright problems. Can you also please explain the abbreviation talk about myself? COI and SPA Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)JBS
  - See WP:COI and WP:SPA. They both apply to you, but aren't the reasons why this would be deleted. Masaruemoto 04:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of WP:MUSIC, I think a good case can be made if there are actually a good number of reliable sources about the group. (Oh.. and G4 is for reposts, is that what you meant?) Mango

juice^talk 01:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... A7, not G4. That's the first time, I think, I've been just utterly confident I remembered the Speedy number from the top of my head and used it without checking -- duh. :) Deltopia 22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete- bad attitude plus no-notability. Bad faith.JJJ999 00:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; They existed, that's it. Even if we assume everything the creator of the article is saying is true, this group still fail WP:MUSIC. A boyband that supported Backstreet Boys and Take That (two of the biggest boybands in history) would have something on the internet about them. A fansite, a few forum messages, anything. The excuse that they were around before the internet doesn't work, I've found information on more obscure bands than this, from 20 years ago. If this band played Wembley Stadium where are the photos? Masaruemoto 02:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have checked the conditions for Wikipedia "Notability" and we fully accept that we Do Meet many of these as replied to another comment above. If you also look above references where given for websites on such as Facebook, we have our own Music Atlanta MySpace site, we are mention in detail on our Managers MySpace, many of these we launched in 2007 to celebrate 10 years since we last appeared live as a group. Though discussion have continued on many general band sites about the Group, these fans many now being your women married with children. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 08:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

There has been no bad attitude I trust from both myself as Manager of the Group or the member of the Group who replied personally, if this is how it has been perceived I can assure you it was not our intention. Exactly the opposite, part of the Groups success was it's friendly genuine Liverpool nature. We have attempted to answer all points raised and are working on doing so. I accepted fully that we do meet the criteria of "notability" when I was kindly directed to the Wikipedia conditions needed. In the UK to be a Young Ambassador for HRH Prince Charles's "The Prince's Trust" is looked on s "Notability" in itself and more so for an unsigned. Atlanta made many apperances at Special Events for The Trust as Yong Ambassador's. The Trust looked at Atlanta as what the principals and hopes for The Trust are are all about.

May I also point out that ATLANTA are a UK Group, someone seems to have gone on about Atlanta the city in the USA. All relevant claims will be fully substantiated with references over the next few days and after the weekend.

Can I say sincere thanks for all the kind help and advice that has been given to us, this is most appreciated, we all have the same aims I'm sure to make Wikepdia a reliable source of information, here sadly in the UK it is not always looked at in good light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs) 06:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just trust this Saturday morning that we can all please remain "calm", we have been accused of a lot over the past 24 hours, when it is fully proved that we have been truthful, I hope these will all be withdrawn in a most friendly manner and then we can all continue with our lives and enjoy Wikipedia as a Free Encyclopeda and reference point - thanks. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 06:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC) JBS

Reference: UK Artists Management Companies: JBS Management http://www.vocalist.org.uk/managers_listings1.html 91.109.2.153 11:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the article looking for citations tags to be replaced with references and any additional information to substantiate the claims of the article. To-date, I have seen nothing new in the article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 14:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be assured all points are being worked on,contact has been made with all "parties" concerned and all have said they will help. Certain sections of the UK Media contacted are most interested after looking at this page. Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)JBS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band (talk • contribs)

Comment Is it just me, or does most of this Afd seem like stalling so the band can recieve a bit of advertising. Sorry if it seems bitey, but that's just how it's looking to me. A^RendedWinter 20:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, but it is not the case. We have just had the weekend when most offices and companies are closed in the UK and yesterday as stated above was the first full day we were able to make contact with all parties concerned, who have all said they will help. Thanks 91.109.2.153 05:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any progress? I see nothing substantial on the project page. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 14:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are expecting some of the relevant information today and it will be posted as quickly as possible, I can assure you progress is being made. Many Thanks John B Sheffield 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- It is nice that they want to make progress, and I can't really imagine there will be any publicity from this, but I don't see why they should get special delaying privilleges because they boldly assert stuff. If they haven't improved it 5 days after AfD then the article should go, and they can appeal it when/if they get better material.JJJ999 02:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to thank everyone for their understanding and also those who have given advice and support.

Now we have posted a link, which shows that Atalnta toured with the BBC National Radio Station BBC Radio One, a flyer and artist pass, on this tour Atlanta where the only unsigned band.

A pass from the Childrens BBC TV appearance at the NEC Birmingham, a photo of the event is used on Wikopdeia.

An article in Mizz Magazine which is one of the longest runninbg teen magazines in the UK aznd who Atlanta toured with several times.

A personal letter from the HRH Prince Charles via his Private Secreatry, which as we claim clearly shows the interest HRH took, the private secreatry had attended for the Prince on the "The Prince's Trust" Concerts and also the private secretary makes reference to RCA Records and the negotiation followin recording the track "One More Chance" with them.

Now we hope that it will be seen the ATLANTA did achieve notability and are still discussed today and that WIKIPEDIA will allow the Atlanta entry as it is no way for publcity purposes.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewPicture&friendID=71171805&albumId=1377851

clicking on any jpg will enlarge it, though you have to be a member of myspace we have also listed all the above on our website:

http://atlantaboyband.mysite.orange.co.uk/

Each citation has it's own page.

This morning we have noticed some of the page is missing, but not in edit form?

Atlanta Liverpool Boy Band 05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Espresso Addict 21:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Osborne[edit]

Contested prod. ~~WP:NN author. WP:N is not inheirited or gained through marriage. Link source seems a bit like self-pub WP:SPAM.~~ Evb-wiki 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her novel/memoir Lilla's Feast has been reviewed by reliable sources. [42][43][44] --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dhartung, her book has been reviewed in WP:RS so she is notable as an author. Bláthnaid 12:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn - It's okay, guys, I'll make the effort to add the WP:RSs to the article. --Evb-wiki 13:33, 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. --Core desat 05:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boon Software[edit]

Delete advertisement for a nn software comany, without any third party sources Carlossuarez46 03:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NOTABILITY 203.221.238.239 13:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The article appears to be sourced only by their website and some press releases. --Ronz 03:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 17:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Toddstreat1 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad, NN. Pavel Vozenilek 00:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Envy Of Nona[edit]

nn band, vanity page, fails WP:BAND Carlossuarez46 03:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. fails WP:BAND. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:BAND. Nuttah68 16:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- who? Mindraker 20:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Haka[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Clearly not notable. !! Justa Punk !! 03:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but he's a professional wrestler...doesn't this mean that he'd be on TV and well covered etc., aside from the simple question about WP:BIO allowing professional sportspersons in their fields (even though pro wrestling is somewhat different)? Keep seems like the right answer to me. Nyttend 04:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable third party evidence to prove he is a wrestler. The information from the IWA website looks like promotion propoganda. And I'm told he has NOT appeared on TV as a wrestler. !! Justa Punk !! 07:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as of this writing, the article has no assertion of notability. The IWA that he wrestled for was also non-notable. Nikki311 03:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable GetDumb 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. MPJ-DK 06:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, component of a non-notable web site (A7) —C.Fred (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reds "Michigo" Kyulni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Reds "Michigo" Kyulni

Non-notable fictional character; crystal ball NeilN 02:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Neroe, a character from same non-notable Flash film. JuJube 03:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this article is patient nonsense (no meaningful content) and also concerns a flash film that is not notable, and hasn't even been made yet. Icestorm815 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Non-notable web content, given that it the film doesn't even exist yet. So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:50, 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 wasMerge content merged and article redirected to Johnny Yong Bosch for inclusion in his bio article. Gnan garra 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeshine (band)[edit]

I originally deleted this as a CSD A7, however the article's creator has convinced me that it might need a broader hearing. The band contains a notable actor, Johnny Yong Bosch and the article's creator has made a claim on my talk page that the band has played "shows all over the country". (diff here) The two combined make this clear A7 for me. However, as I feel that the band clearly does not meet WP:MUSIC, it should be deleted. Dsmdgold 02:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Eyeshine may not be the most "notable" band out there right now, they are quite popular and are quickly gaining popularity. They have played everywhere from California to Colorado, Michigan to Pennsylvania and everywhere in between. Johnny Yong Bosch, the band's lead singer, is probably best known for his role as Adam Park on the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers and its' incarnations Power Rangers Zeo and Power Rangers Turbo but he is also well known in the anime world as the voice of Ichigo in "Bleach", Vash the Stampede in "Trigun" along with many others. He is also voicing the main character Nero in the soon-to-be-released video game "Devil May Cry 4." Because of Johnny alone I'm convinced that Eyeshine deserves a Wikipedia page but the fact that they are a quickly rising band that plays all across the United States, in my opinion, should be enough for the mods to allow their page to stay up. Big pun 88 06:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I found a few articles on blog sites, and they have played a ton of anime conventions. NOt sure this is kind of a unique case. Ridernyc 10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johnny Yong Bosch. The band is not notable in its own right but probably deserves a mention in his article. Nuttah68 16:46, 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. --Core desat 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Running gags in Seinfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete - no reliable sources on the topic. The notability of the show doesn't mean that every "running gag" from the show, or a list of those gags, is notable. Otto4711 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It's not even trivia... it's... "bivia"?--victor falk 03:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletehave to be honest not even sure what to say about this. I've been trying to not use terms like fancruft, but really when faced with this what else could you call it. Ridernyc 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just curious what sources you'd require in order to keep this article. There are multiple books about the show ([45], [46], [47], [48], [49], etc.) and I'm sure at least some of these gags have been the subject of critical analysis. Zagalejo^^^ 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is part of the problems with lists of this sort there is no way to really source the info hence the entire list become original research. Ridernyc 06:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know I've read magazine articles that explicitly described some of these as recurring jokes (eg. Kramer's entrances, "Hello, Newman", etc). It's not hopelessly OR; indeed, with a little effort, I'm confident I could verify a good chunk of this page with third-party sources. (The first hit here would be a good start.) I'm mainly wondering how I would show that this passes the notability criteria. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is a whole different can of worms.WP:FICT says that notability should be inherited from the main Seinfeld article, but it kind of contradicts itself after that. Also you quickly hit a point where you have to question how far a subject can inherit notability. I would make the case that this would inherit notability. I really do not question this articles notability, I think there other problems in it.Ridernyc 06:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would you concede that this is a cleanup issue, and not a deletion issue? If the subject is notable, the current content of the article is irrelevant.Zagalejo^^^ 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the entry is unencyclopedic and crosses the line between things that should be on wikipedia and things that should not be on wikipedia.Ridernyc 02:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while this list may have specifically uncitable objects, citations that provide notability can be easily brought over from the seinfeld page, etc. --Buridan 15:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per noteability. Majoreditor 01:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? What would you require to demonstrate notability? No one can provide a counter-argument to such vague statements. Zagalejo^^^ 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination, lacking reliable sources about the subject. Yamaguchi先生 02:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It varies as to what can be considered a running gag, and is a matter of opinion, which in turn pages this page total original research. Dannycali 01:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why does this article exist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ive got an idea, lets just keep nominating it until it gets deleted. Sigh, thats whats wrong with this AFD process. It exists because it is encyclopedic. And if you think the content is unverifiable or un-sourceable you really need to read WP:OR regarding Primary sources, "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Viperix 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's been a real push to keep renominating this article. Why, it was nominated one entire time before, 16 months ago! And it closed no consensus! Let us bar ourselves from ever considering it again! By the way, the Five Pillars are not policy; they are an overview of policy. Pointing at them and saying "encyclopedic" really doesn't say a whole lot. Otto4711 21:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, A7. This character has no existence outside of the flash movies, so it is de facto web content. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neroe[edit]

non-notable fictional character; prod notice removed NeilN 02:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7, no claim of notability Toohool 03:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A7 doesn't technically apply to fictional characters (but I won't complain if someone speedies this anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Toohool. Didn't need to be AfD'd. Creator has another article based off his non-notable Flash movie and is vandalizing it. JuJube 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Believe me, I completely agree with you. However two editors are removing CSD notices from each other's articles. --NeilN 03:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This article is not notable and is also patient nonsense (no meaningful content) Icestorm815 03:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable fictional character from an not yet completed flash movie. However, since I know that the article is about a character from a flash movie, it is not patent nonsense. Fictional characters are not eligible for A7. This is not a speedy candidate. Dsmdgold 03:45, 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~~. --Core desat 05:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned own decision to redirect as the content had been merged to Illbient. GFDL requires the history be kept. --Core desat 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of illbient musicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

An original research “list” of three musicians. Article has virtually no usefully content, and has not been significantly improved in ages. I’m honestly not sure why it survived the first AfD. S.dedalus 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or just merge into illbient. Dylan 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, merge into the talk page of "illbient" with the advice to find solid references that thay are ill indeed. `'Míkka 01:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have merged it in illbient. Since when is AMG not a reliable source?--victor falk 02:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point to have a list with only 3 person. Carlosguitar 05:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - list on the illbient article is sufficient. Torc2 06:41, 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. --Core desat 05:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of pieces which use collage[edit]

A page which has nothing whatsoever to do with the title, and is merely a list of a few no longer existing articles. The page has no context or salvageable content. Looks like this one slipped by somehow. S.dedalus 01:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 01:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say recategorize, rename, and redo article. I do believe that it is possible to clean up the article. connor.carey 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t say that an “article” really exists right now, just a title. Lets start over. At least deletion will make room. Also, as has been pointed out at recent similar deletions, this kind of article is really better as a category anyway. --S.dedalus 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. By the way what the heck is collage as applied to music, i.e., where is "Collage (music)"? I'd love to know. `'Míkka 01:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sound collage and Musical montage are linked from Collage#Collage in music. Rather confusingly, since the opening paragraphs of Collage talk only of visual arts... Thomjakobsen 02:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Torc2 06:39, 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. Wizardman 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin P. Baker Middle School[edit]

{{{Delete -- there is nothing special about this Middle School. It is rediculous to have articles about every middle school in existance}}} Dmcc 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree this page follows all the wikipedia's guidelines, and it would be pure bias and discrimination to remove it.
Keep Although this middle school is fairly ordinary, it follows Wikipedia's guidelines for an article. There is really no reason for deletion. connor.carey 01:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corpus Christi Independent School District—the usual procedure for nonnotable subsecondary schools, I believe. Deor 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge per Deor: the idea that middle schools are inherently notable has been generally rejected, and there's nothing to prove that this is notable for something other than its existence. Nyttend 04:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The talk page doesn't inspire confidence, and it may be worth keeping an eye on things in the future. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Corpus Christi Independent School District as suggested. Yamaguchi先生 02:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the district. Only the truly exceptional middle school will be notable for WP purposes--it would take some quite unusual constellation of awards or alumni, or some major newsworthy events, or a truly historic building. DGG (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Core desat 05:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld girlfriends[edit]

Delete - the notability of the show does not make every subset of characters from the show notable. Otto4711 01:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seinfeld has entered popular culture in so many ways. JJL 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seinfeld's (and the other main characters') dating is one of the major theme of the series.--victor falk 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be discussed in an article about Seinfeld themes. That it may be a theme doesn't mean that a list of women he dated is notable. Otto4711 02:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This a list, ie a navigational aid, it helps readers finding episodes with that notable theme. --victor falk 02:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:LIST purposes by being well-organized. Could use a few more sources establishing the notability of the theme and the idea that this launched or furthered more than one actress's career. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying any and all lists of any and all things that any and all people can think of, should be kept if they're well-organized? Corvus cornix 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, the root topic (Seinfeld's girlfriends) is not notable. By extension, this list is also not notable. -Chunky Rice 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only source doesn't appear to be reliable under the definition at WP:RS, therefore this is basically unsourced trivia. Corvus cornix 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone creates a list of Seinfeld shirt colours, and Seinfeld Kitchen cabinets and Seinfeld snacks. Because that will make it alright. Operating 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly per Chunky Rice's argument about how the root topic is not notable on its own. Dannycali 01:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per victor falk and Dhartung --Joelster 00:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable and not an encyclopaedic subject. Merge the external link to somewhere and leave it at that. --Jack Merridew 11:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Eusebeus 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung as article seems to satisfy our standards. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What standards are those? Corvus cornix 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because the show is notable, doesn't make every aspect of it notable for inclusion. This is fancruft, and trivial information at best. RobJ1981 22:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may be nicely put together with specific episode references, but that alone doesn't make the subject notable. •97198 talk 14:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic and rather trivial. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move. Or as Homer would say, D'oh! Chick Bowen 14:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Delehanty[edit]

Problems: No sources. Looking through online newspaper archives just now I was able to verify very little other than his name and occupation. The article seems to contradict itself. And most importantly, runs up against the living people notable only for one event problem. Chick Bowen 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to correct spelling, Thomas Delahanty (which helps searches). It may be only one event, but it was a pretty significant one. In addition to the shooting there was a fairly important lawsuit against Hinckley. --Dhartung | Talk 03:59, 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. Nihiltres^(t.l) 13:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seinfeld music scores[edit]

Delete - per extensive precedent lists of songs from TV shows are directories of loosely associated topics. The songs aren't notable for having been played in a Seinfeld episode. Everything in this article is in the main Seinfeld article already, word for word. Otto4711 01:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Majoreditor 02:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia. --victor falk 02:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 01:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Operating 19:39, 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. --Core desat 05:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kanchipuram (film)[edit]

Fails WP:NF, does not assert notability, is unreferenced. Girolamo Savonarola 01:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a future film, no sources asserting the production itself is notable. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per David Schaich and WP:CRYSTAL. --Jonathan letters to the editor — things I've written 01:19, 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 Keep Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Hample[edit]

ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

^{Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}}

delete-No notability, no evidence of it JJJ999 05:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources to satisfy WP:V. meshach 06:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What are you talking about? There might be a problem with notability, but noone's suggesting that the guy doesn't exist — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has to do more then exist. He has to have verifiable sources that demonstrate that he meets WP:N. meshach 16:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per verifiability. Also, NN. - Rjd0060 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be something there, but at this point there is no evidence at all. --Crusio 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised people say there isnt anything without even checking google scholar--there seem to be 3 or 4 books he has written plus about 30 peer reviewed journal article. I'll add it in more detail tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I temporarily removed a laundry-list of publications from this article last week, as it was dominating the article to such an extent that it was becoming an indiscriminate collection of information; if anyone thinks it should be restored, by all means do so. I am deliberately not commenting on whether this should be kept or deleted as, while he certainly seems notable within his field, I'm not able to judge whether the field is so specialised that notability within it is not sufficient. Despite bordering on a breach of AGF, I think it's necessary to point out that the nominator has a lengthy history of apparent bad-faith AfD nominations of debating-related material, which has been raised at AN/I in the past - see [50], [51], [52], [53] for example. — iridescent 17:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the books written & edited, and the peer-reviewed articles and omitted the conference proceedings & papers, which was originally put in =just as Iridescent says- as a thoughtless copy & paste. I have also added that he is editor, not merely on the editorial board, of a major journal--which normally counts a good deal for academic notability. Not all associate professors are notable--it depends on the publications and scholarly record. His seems very substantial. "Rhetoric" or "Communications" is a very broad field as I see it, and notability in this is certainly notable. DGG (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to Keep as per DGG. The article needs cleanup, though, the list of publications is not really necessary. --Crusio 20:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply- I have no such history, and half the stuff you've discussed is not even debating related (RD Reynolds? WTF?) This is not a debating related article anyway, it is about some professor, who also apparently does rhetoric classes. I have no idea who he is, or what influence he has on debating (if any), in point of fact I've never heard of him. I nominated this because merely being an academic isn't sufficient. Every academic has a few publications at least in some journal or another, almost all of them are on one board or another. There is nothing really specific or sufficiently noteworthy for him to be added to Wikipedia. I mean, if he was Editor of the NY times, he'd be a notable figure. "Some journals"... come on. the two main "Journals" he is editor for are not even on wikipedia, which is the first hint of notability right there. the Journals are not notable, but he is? Here is one of these "journals", it lacks even its own webpage as near as I can tell, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03637751.asp, rather it is hosted on some other site. And on it we see it is published 4 times a year, and the group who publishes it has 7000 members... yeh, it's right up there with the Monash Debating Review... pfft. And this is even funnier, they are actually calling for contributions from the public here: http://www.natcom.org/pubs/CM/policyCM.htm, only someone with no concept of journalism would consider this to be a professional publication.JJJ999 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, every academic has a few publications-- the average in most fields is about two articles, in some fields a book instead. Not many in the humanities have as high a number as this -- 42 peer reviewed articles and two books. Many academics are on an editorial board or two, and that is not by itself notable--but being editor of a journal is another matter & is a position of both prestige and power. Most academic journals in the humanities are published 4 or 6 times a year & 7000 members is pretty good in the specialized areas of the humanities. The T&F web site is the site for the publisher of the journal, which is where most journals have their web sites. Most of the notable journals are not in WP yet- like other areas in WP they are being done according to the number of interested editors, not the intrinsic importance. We don't have nearly enough editors for fields like this. "some professor", "also does rhetoric classes", are terms of denigration, not argument. And, most tellingly I have no idea who he is DGG (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed Reply- those are not terms of denigration, merely facts. He is just "some professor", he does "some rhetoric classes" according to this article (almost no details given) and I definitely had "no idea who he is". I now have some idea who he is, and that is some middle of the road academic. My father is not an academic, and even he has 3 books, and credit or chapters in others, and plenty of papers. Every serious academic has a book, every serious professor has dozens of peer reviewed articles. Rick Kuhn is a good analogy for "bottom tier professor". He is crazy marxist professor at the ANU of no notability, who has a self hosted page which discusses why Marx and Engels thought bird patterns were relevant to communism. In other words, a nutter. Yet he has more books than this guy, and probably as many papers. The important question is the sorts of journals he is published in, and the number of copies these books sell. In the absence of any evidence of notability for either, he fails. You have to provide the evidence, not me, because you claim he's notable. Nothing in a preliminary scan of his works indicates he is, and I await proof to the contrary. 7000 is a pitiful number for a supposed major journal, and that's 7000 members of the sub-org who runs it (no mention of what token fee they pay), lord knows what the circulation of this quarterly magazine which has to call to the general public for material is. To give you an eg, here is an awful, totally unnotable academic, who would never qualify for a serious page here. http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/rick/pub.htm Anyone with knowledge of this guy will tell you he is totally crazy and unnotable, yet there is his CV. All academics do is write articles, 40 is hardly an impressive #, you need to show they are notable articles or journals.JJJ999 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JJJ999, I understand your surprise. People who are not in academia often under-/overestimate what scientists do and the importance of their stuff. 7000 subscribers for a scientific journal is huge. There are very few journals that have as many subscribers, most count them in the hundreds, not thousands. That doesn't mean only those hundreds read the journals: many of these subscribers are libraries and most academics have access to almost all important journals in their fields. As for the number of articles, 40 peer reviewed articles is actually quite a lot. DGG seems to be better acquinted with the humanities than I am (I'm a life scientist), but I can assure you that many scientists will be happy if they finish their careers having published that many papers. As for editorial board positions, I actually think they are more important than DGG asserts. Take my field, Neuroscience. The Web of Science lists 200 Neuroscience journals. Say all have about 30 board members, that gives about 6000 slots world wide. Many of the more prestigious scientists will be on more than 1 board, sometimes even dozens. So if I say that there are 4000 neuroscientists that are on at least one board, that's probably an overestimate. I don't know how many neuroscientists there are world wide. But you get an idea if you note that the (US) Society for Neuroscience annual meetings attract about 35,000 participants. There must be a couple of hundred thousands neuroscientists in the whole world, so only about 1% of all neuroscientists are on 1 or more boards. I bet the situation is similar in the humanities. So if this guy is on 10 boards, that's pretty notable.... --Crusio 07:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Well, I just don't agree I'm afraid. As for comparing this to neuroscience... you guys keep giving generalistic replies about "in other fields this would be alot" that just get away from the point, you need to show that the journals or articles he does are notable, not that they theoretically could be if he was a neurosurgeon... I await this proof, but it isn't coming.JJJ999 00:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio's point here is that people in the medical sciences typically publish a greater number of papers than in other subjects. This many papers for someone in neuroscience (not neurosurgery, by the way--that's a different profession) might well be notable--but for the humanities, its rather sensational. DGG (talk) 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a) At no stage have you shown there is a circulation of 7000, rather the (non-notable) body which hosts the website claims to have 7000 members (whether they pay or not is unclear). There is no evidence the magazine even sells 7000 copies per year, nor if that is 7000 for all 4 issues, or 7000 per issue, there is no evidence you have provided.

b) Even if there were, 7000 per issue is a pitiful circulation, and would not be sufficient to attain wiki notability. You need to establish who are on these boards, that they are notable, and/or that his books were notable enough. You have not done that at any stage despite my requests, and despite clear evidence that he is less published than a crackpot from a mid-tier uni in Australia. The arguments made by your friend are pure assertion, or utterly irrelevant. Reason magazine provides all their content free on their website. They are a niche magazine dealing with Libertarian ideals. they have a circulation of 60,000- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_magazine, "Scientific American (informally abbreviated to "SciAm") had a monthly circulation of roughly 555,000 US and 90,000 international as of December 2005.[1]". How bout the rest of the science market? From wiki I notice the following science magazines (the ones I found which listed circulation, also dwarfed it. "National Geographic magazine won the American Society of Magazine Editors' prestigious General Excellence Award in the over two million circulation", Popular Science gets 1.6 mill circ (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22Popular+science%22+circulation&meta=), The Sketical Inquirer has between 50K and 120K apparently... "Seed" magazine, a new one, has 105,000 circulation. Where is the evidence this is notable? You haven't provided anything, from a website, to circulation to evidence of even professionalism (one of them calls to the public for contributions... it reads like the local MacMuffin Rag. JJJ999 06:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment JJJ999, I think you fail to appreciate the difference between scholarly journals and periodicals aimed at a general public, such as Scientific American. Those journals have large numbers of subscribers. They are also affordable. Most scholarly journals cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year to subscribe to. Only some have reduced rates of anywhere between 50 and 200 bucks for personal subscriptions. They publish highly technical articles, in which only specialists in that field would be interested, not the general public. The WoK list consists of the most prestigious (and certainly notable) journals in the different scientific fields. They list over 6000 different scientific journals (and, yes, Scientific American is included, but ranks not very high). Knowing the scientific publishing world from closer up, I would be amazed if there were more than a handful of scientific journals with circulations above, say, 2000. Nature and Science, the two top journals in all fields, probably don't even come close to 100,000. In short, for a journal aimed at a general public a circulation of 7000 is indeed not verty notable, as you say. But for a scientific scholarly journal, that is enormous. (Some of the hottest journals in my field, neuroscience, count there subscriptions in the hundreds.... And they are definitely notable, with Nobel Prize winners on their boards and such). As for your comment hgher up about these jurnals "not even having their own websites", that is absolutely normal. Publishers have websites and list their journals on those sites. Taylor and Francis (and their imprint Routledge) are a very respectable publisher. The "call for papers" on the website of "Argumentation and Advocacy" is completely standard, too, for scholarly journals. It indicates which type of papers can be submitted. If you look at the editor's report, you can see that the rejection rate is almost 50% (20/45), which is rather high and indicates that this is a journal that gets enough submissions to afford them to be critical and only pick the best. As far as I am concerned, this discussion has gone on long enough. Let's close already and keep. --Crusio 10:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and again- a) You haven't shown what the circulation or notability for any of his journals is, you just keep saying "if it is 7000, we might assume that is high", b) Generalistic remarks like "7000 will often be high" tells us nothing about whether these specific journals are notable, the onus is on you to provide some sort of evidence for this, not more generalised replies from different fields, and c) The facts I present if anything indicate they are not serious at all, you cite 50% rejection as though it is a high number... anyone with the merest understanding of professional journalism can tell you it is not.JJJ999 11:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JJJ999, I may not know much about "professional journalism", but I do know a lot about scientific publishing. Apparently, you do not. Cirtculation is absolutely NO indication at all about whether a scientific journal is notable, that is my whole point above. Scientists access journals through libraries, nowadays mostly through electronic web portals. So whereas I subscribe to only a few scientific journals myself, I follow a few dozen journals on a regular basis to keep up with developments in my field of study. 7000 Would be huge, but if it's just a couple of hundred, that would not mean that the journal is not notable. One journal that you heaped your scorn upon, Communication Monographs, is ranked 16/44 in the category "Communication", according to Thompson/ISI. That's very respectable and notable, the journal should have it's own page on Wikipedia if it doesn't have one yet. I am sorry, but your frequent references to "professional journalism" when talking about scholarly journals indicate that you are not familiar with scientific publishing. I gingerly suggest that you get familiar with the subject before commenting on it further. At this point I feel that this discussion is not very productive any more and this will be my last posting to this AfD. --Crusio 12:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Notability looks ok, but only the important journal articles (if any) should be listed. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 01:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the above conversation, most of which occurred after I stated my opinion, I feel I should reaffirm my position, and also second Crusio's comments. Academic journals generally have a small number of (mainly institutional) subscribers. Consider, for instance, this journal (which also does not have a Web site of its own), which charges over $6000 for yearly subscriptions. Additionally, a publicly viewable "Call for Manuscripts" is not a solicitation of articles from the general public, as jjj999 has repeatedly claimed. Consider, for instance, this Call for Manuscripts for a book series on computational science and engineering issued by SIAM. I am also slightly concerned that the canvassing warning posted at the top of this page seems to have been added not because there was actually any canvassing, but as an attempt to discredit shorter comments. This seems not to assume good faith. Although Hample's field is not my own, a good case has been made for his notability. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article requires major cleanup, but should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor.carey (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not my area, but an Editor-in-chief of one journal who is on the ed board of ten more seems to meet WP:PROF criteria 1. Espresso Addict 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, it is my opinion that this person does meet WP:PROF guideline. Yamaguchi先生 02:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --S.dedalus 03:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
baffled comment- per all above? Per all above has not given any explanation of why this stuff is notable, and much doubt has been shown that it is. This sort of one line vote is exactly why I place that notice, and I hope the Mod ignores it...JJJ999 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "That notice" also asks people to "assume good faith". --Crusio 10:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's obvious, and unfortunate, which way this is going. Ugh.JJJ999 06:25, 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. --Core desat 05:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcela Miscla[edit]

Delete: Porn actress that does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:PORNBIO. Has done something like 10 titles (all run-of-the-mill porn videos – nothing standing out as important in that genre), no awards, and nothing outside porn that establishes notability. Iamcuriousblue 00:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wp:n & wp:wikipedia is not a porn actor directory.--victor falk 02:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 articles found AVN, Xbiz, or Gnews. <2k ghits, only from sales operations. No coverage of any kind and I agree with nominator doesn't meet any inherent claims.Horrorshowj 05:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Carlosguitar 05:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --TGreenburgPR 02:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki. Whispe ring 11:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephane Hemon[edit]

No proper sources. Looks like marketing material. Nothing looking like a proper source showed up at google, so I wonder if sufficient sources exist for a bio on this guy. Friday (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ad. JJL 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friday is correct. There are no proper sources, YET. There will be. Please be patient as I'm still actively constructing the entry one step at a time. Thanks for keeping an eye out.

Ariel 02:32, 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. --Core desat 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open Source Pictures[edit]

non-notable company[54] Coo53 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a company that has proper sources. I'd say Keep it. connor.carey 01:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What proper sources? The two websites which are owned by the company? The list of Delaware-incorporated corporations? None of these meets the requirements for sourcing. Corvus cornix 21:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources in an intial search. The name doesn't even return the company's own web site in the google top 10 results.--Torchwood Who? 01:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find secondaries sources that are independent to meets the notability. Carlosguitar 05:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. First few pages of Google search showed no results for this particular company. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 22:57, 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. --Core desat 05:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary M. Newmark[edit]

non-notable [55][56]}[57] Coo53 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe some day, but not notable yet.--Torchwood Who? 01:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a non-notable person. Carlosguitar 05:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Bio. Both the person and the company don't seem very noteable. No google results in the first few pages. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 23:00, 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. --Core desat 05:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osahon Eboigbe[edit]

reason reason nn soccer player it seems no one can find info on him have not played for the a team yet only the youth if that totally fails wp:bio also contested prodOo7565 18:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Note- delete per what i said aboveOo7565 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Goggle search did come up with some hits, like this one (you do have to have an account to access it). person is notable. Tiptoety 18:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like he's played at Cercle Brugge. Try this link [58] at soccerstats.com. Peanut4 00:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 00:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Peanut4, sport.be also shows him as having played in 9 games so far. Nanonic 00:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oo7565's comment below, on further searching the club's own supporters website says he hasn't made a full team start yet [59] and the lack of squad number on all the websites I can see (and understand) would seem to verify that. Nanonic 02:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note i may be wrong and forgive me if i turn out to be wrong. i went to those 2 websites that said he played it looks like they just showed the games the team haves played and not the player just me because both site to me have a pleace where they put the info in if the player had played in the game both of them seem to me say he have not plyed 1 min on the field for them. he may be on the beach but not played so if have not played he is still nn and do please forgive me if i am and i can find a souce saying he played in a game then i would be more then happy to withdraw this afd ok if me see if i can find a source okOo7565 01:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article itself admits his appearances and goals for Blackburn Rovers F.C., Cercle Brugge and Nigeria are zero + zero, zero + zero, and zero + zero. I suspect that Soccerstats is listing Cercle Brugge games in total, not games in which the subject has actually appeared. I therefore discount this reference's validity. The article shows the usual "talking-up" of a non-notable player. Ref ^(chew)(do) 08:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - person is part of a professional football team (and currently one of the top teams in Belgium). And why the hurry? As soon as he has played a few matches, he will be notable. (He has only arrived recently at Cercle.) Or do I really have to save the whole article in a Notepad file and recreate it when he has played? :-/ Karma-AH 17:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - note on above comment

Karma-AH you should look at wp:bio there you see that he does fail it sorry it does not matter which team you on even if the the best team in Belgium the team does not make the player notable you have to play for that team to become notable it may not be the best way to do it but that what we have if he did have ways to check if they are reel anyone could say on here they are on that team again look at wp:bio okOo7565 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no hurry, just deletion required according to the rules. Retaining articles just in case notability is reached is a no-no according to WP:BIO. Save it and recreate it then. No need to take an 'exasperated' tone either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - note on comment above

Ok, no problem if you delete it. But what bothers me a little is that it's really easy to find other football biographies - I found a little less than 20 in only 30 minutes - that could be deleted because of the same reason put up here. But I don't notice a deletion tag there (and I wonder if I ever will)... I just think that's a bit inconsequent. Karma-AH 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well, you submit them for AfD then - it's that simple. You would just be doing what somebody has already done to Osahon Eboigbe, which is why we are giving our thoughts on the validity of the article today. If you put it/them up for deletion, I'll "vote" on it/them. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player is not notable (yet) as he has not appeared for Cercle in a league match yet ([60]). Jogurney 01:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jogurney's evidence. Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (no professional league appearances). --Angelo 01:00, 15 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, Daniel 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relist: there's no consensus to delete at the moment, although points raised late in this debate merit further discussion and input in an attempt to reach a clearer consensus. Relisting on this basis. Daniel 09:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote remains as Delete. Cercle had another match this weekend and Eboigbe again did not play. Jogurney 04:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject currently falls short of the notability requirements for sports people. Nuttah68 16:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to the infobox, player has zero games played at the national or professional level. Recreate the article later if the player achieves notability. Cogswobble talk 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as we all know, AfDs are not votes. If you tot up the number of Keeps and compare with the number of Deletes, you could easily say there's no consensus to delete. However, there's no remit for any count of either to be made. What's most important is the argument presented with each choice of Keep or Delete.

Each request to Keep must be based on the guidelines in force at the time, and must be reasoned out according to them. The same applies to Delete statements. I would suggest to all that the rationale applied by those calling for Delete is far more in keeping with the rules and regs than that given when others ask for a Keep. I would ask you also to look at the the last three entries "late in this debate". They are all extremely valid Delete requests, and as such I believe consensus is tipped firmly in that direction. My earlier choice of "Delete" remains unchanged. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 21:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Delete means that this article can never be re-created, i think that this article has potential, i recommend tagging for cleanup and expansion and see what happens, this person is obviously real, there are sources about him, i do not think deletion is the proper action at this time. Tiptoety 01:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not right. A deleted article can very easily be re-created. --Malcolmxl5 04:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when the player fulfils the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. robwingfield ^«T•C» 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until any of the above links can prove he played rather than appear to list Cercle's games, he fails to meet notability criteria. Peanut4 11:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - despite misguided misinformation (Karma-AH / Tiptoey) in order to avoid deletion of this article, I believe that consensus has been reached, and I urge interested admins to step in to avoid this becoming a 'saga' when it's just a straightforward choice. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:24, 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.