Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 19 October 21 >

Purge server cache

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

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

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


Bruce Burritt' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bruce Burritt is a real person, but the article is filled with nonsense. Diffucult to tell exactly what is correct or factual.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Merda[edit]

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

I'm completing the nomination of this article for a second AfD. The nominator points out that the article was successfully deleted once, but this rewrite seems to contain sourcing that might satisfy WP:MUSIC. No opinion. GTBacchus(talk) 21:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - band has a bibliography but not a discography. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. B1atv 16:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources more than meet the core notability requirement of 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject'. Nuttah68 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears properly sourced and adequately notable. --Evb-wiki 14:50, 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 no consensus. W.marsh 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Caughey[edit]

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

Delete *This article should be deleted because Christine Caughey was not re-elected back onto the council, and is now a private citizen — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlySam (talk • contribs)

  • Keep *This article must not be deleted as it holds an important record of someone who is a well known and influential figure in Auckland politics. This is regardless of whether or not she holds public office at the current time or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.195.86.36 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. No point in having an article about someone who is no longer a politician and whose party is gone. Barzini 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She still retains notability. —  MusicMaker5376 01:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how she satisfied WP:BIO when she was a member of the council. Clarityfiend 02:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is permanent, but she never had it. --Dhartung | Talk 02:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 03:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has been the subject of edit wars in the past, but has been trimmed to a stub recently. I've restored much of the content, and would suggest those who have already commented in this AfD might like to look at the article again if they didn't examine its history earlier. In particular, Caughey was awarded the title of Aucklander of the Year in 2004 by Metro Magazine, which is a fairly well known Auckland City magazine. I think that's enough to establish notability.-gadfium 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep probably notable but not adequately sourced to show this. JJL 14:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:BIO Pilotbob 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly does meet WP:BIO. Let's see: text contains information about notability - check; WP:LIVING - check; published non-trivial independent secondary sources - check. Please explain how this doesn't meet WP:BIO. --Dom 12:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notability is not lost when you are no longer in office. Vegaswikian 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a local politician is not notable in itself. All sources provided are what would be expected of, and show that this person was, a local politician. Nuttah68 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep city councillors in major cities are notable, and Auckland certainly counts. 17:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above as Auckland is a major city and city politicians in large cities are notable. Thus it satisfies enough WP:BIOJForget 23:26, 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 20:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Vesham[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 21:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Weak assertion of notability. —  MusicMaker5376 01:56, 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. I will be renaming the article Detox (Dr. Dre album) as it is not the only album called Detox: See also Detox (Treble Charger album)--JForget 00:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detox (album)[edit]

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

There's no official release date. The source cited was a YouTube video (YouTube it is not a reliable source, plus, it may be a copyvio. Not to mention the album was going to be released on 2004 according to Dr. Dre. This is WP:CRYSTAL as it finest. A similar AfD was deleted. Tasc0 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The YouTube video had Bishop Lamont (one of Dr. Dre's proteges) confirming the release date. There's the "FreshHipHopNews" source in the article also confirming the date. Also, this Raw Footage album only had 2 sources. This has more than 20 sources, MTV, Billboard, etc., notable, unlike Raw Footage. There is also the Los Angeles Times interview in which Dr. Dre himself confirms the 2008 release date. There are at least 10 other people confirmed to be working on this album. What does Raw Footage have? Nothing. Also, how can you even say it is WP:CRYSTAL, when Dr. Dre confirmed that Detox will be released? This nomination is WP:CRYSTAL at its finest, you are assuming that the album will not be released because its release date was pushed back. Dr. Dre, and his associates, saying the album will be released, and plenty of musicians confirming that they are working on the album, is not enough? --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really beautiful, but, he's being pushing back the album for four years now. Doesn't matter if he say it will be out, and this AfD it is not to discuss about Raw Footage. Somewhat, looks you're doing that. I don't care if even Jesus or God is on the YouTube video, that's not a reliable source and a probably copy vio. Dr. Dre just said it will be out, and maybe talked about how he's working on the album. That's not a release date. Enough said.--Tasc0 23:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saying it's out in 2008 is a release date. It probably passes WP:N because it has significant coverage. Enough said. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the album is notable, because it is from a notable artists. Just like Raw Footage. But, considering that Dr. Dre has being talking about this album from about 2004, it's pretty obvious that he really doesn't have a release date. He only say "Oh yeah, it will be out on 2008". Just like he's beeing saying it since 2004. There is no official release date. He only said it will be out on 2008 because he thinks like that. Those are just words from an artists.--Tasc0 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, even though the artist says it's out next year, it won't be, because... you know it won't be? Raw Footage is not notable, there were only two sources there. Detox has like twenty references. Just because you say it won't be released doesn't mean Dr. Dre himself is wrong. It's his album, he should know better than... you. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The references don't make an album notable, lol. That was funny. What makes it notable is whose artist is according to WP:MUSIC. That right there, says what's notable and what's not. I'm not saying I know more than Dr. Dre, for Pete's sake. How old are you? All I'm saying is that the release date is just a word of mouth. No release date from the record label = not official.--Tasc0 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are funny too. How old are you? WP:N. If there's significant coverage, then it's notable. The artist would know more about his own project than his record label. Why did you even vote keep at the Raw Footage AfD, if you knew it was only word of mouth? That's a bit strange. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is exactly the same thing than Ego Trippin'. The only difference is that this is a very anticipated album with no official release date. That's all.--Tasc0 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, this is nothing like Ego Trippin'. That article only had two paragraphs of information. This has confirmed collaborations with notable artists. Ego Trippin' didn't even have a confirmed release date. This album has a release date. Dr. Dre himself said it will be released in 2008. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 23:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You just don't get it, do you?. I do understand this album has a lot of featured guest, like you said. That doesn't even matter, that does not give an official release date. It only says that Dr. Dre is working on it, just like Raw Footage and probably Ego Trippi'n. We don't even know where those song are going to end up. But that's not the point, the point is the release date is just a rumor that came out of Dr. Dre mouth with out backing it up with the record label official release date.--Tasc0 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (unindent) You don't get it. WP:N. It has significant coverage, it is therefore notable. I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about with the release date. Jesus Christ, are you honestly trying to say that it's a rumor, even though the ARTIST HIMSELF confirmed it? What the hell are you even doing editing Wikipedia if you don't get this? Also, how do you find WP:N funny ("The references don't make an album notable, lol. That was funny.")? You obviously need to take a break or something, clear your head, then look at WP:N, re-read the article, etc., then you will realize that you are wrong, and that Dr. Dre is a reputable source :). Don't even try to compare this with Ego Trippin' and Raw Footage, this has more sources (coverage) than the two articles put together. At this point, I believe that even if the album were to be shelved, it would still deserve an article, simply because it passes WP:N. The fact that you are now saying that Dr. Dre is spreading rumors about his own album (LOL moment) probably means that even you realized that you are wrong, and that you are just trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find some reasons to delete this article. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I clearly don't see your point here. What I said, is that you can't compare how many references an article has and say it's notable just because it has more than another one. And I really don't understand what are you trying to say about me trying to scrape the bottom of the barrel. I nominated the article with the reason I think it's a valid one. The fact is, that even though Dr. Dre said it will be out on 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, etcetera, there is no official release date. I can understand that you may not find this reason valid, but at least can you understand it? That's all I want right now.--Tasc0 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand how you can claim that Dr. Dre is spreading rumors about his own album, and, clearly, no one else does either, since every single vote so far has been a "Keep" vote, also stating it's not WP:CRYSTAL. If it has many references, (in most cases) it means that it has significant coverage. Also, with the guests, it means that he has actually created parts of the album, he already said there's at least 18 potential tracks, he even named a track ("Intervention"). The difference between Detox and the other two albums you mentioned is that... Ice Cube and Snoop Dogg have not mentioned anything about parts of the album being completed. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing in WP:MUSIC that states that an album needs to have an official release date to be notable. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply, as the album currently exists. It's not finished, but it exists. The article is well-written, cited, etc. No reason to delete. —  MusicMaker5376 02:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't even know if "the album is ready". Nobody know where those songs may end up. I already said that. And the reason I nominated is because there is no official release date, not because the article needs a clean up or be cited. What the hell.--Tasc0 03:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the artists said they will end up on Detox, they will probably end up on Detox, how can you say "we don't know where they will end up", when the artists themselves confirmed this? That passes WP:VERIFY, maybe Dr. Dre will change his mind, but, you know what? He didn't deny that they will end up on the album. It doesn't need an "official release date", if so, you might as well delete like half of the albums found here. --- Who's the one you call Mr. Macho? The head honcho, swift fist like Camacho 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. Mind you, the article exists since 2004 and you are the first person who thinks it should be deleted. Daniil Maslyuk 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not crystalballing at all. We have articles on events that will occur years from now, mostly sporting events. We can make articles about future events if some information is notable now. An example would be a choosing of a city to host an Olympic Games or the casting of a movie that will be released in Spring or Summer 2008. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does anybody that cites CRYSTAL actually bother reading it? It's expected that Detox will drop sometime, and it already exists. Notability is strong, and barring everything else, it needs a seperate article because of summary style. east.718 at 09:14, 10/21/2007
  • Keep - The Raw Footage article was not giving any sources, only two interviews saying that he is working on it. This album is having so much sources info etc... And it says albums gone out in June 2008. So it has a release date? can't believe it was actually for deletion. West Coast Ryda 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While people are trying to make the best out of this article and make it notable someone is coming halfway nominating it for deletion, really funny LOL. --West Coast Ryda 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Definite keep in my opinion, the page is well sourced and gives alot of information. Also, i don't get why Tasco nominated this per WP:CRYSTAL, when in the Raw Footage Afd he had an argument with West Coast Ryda of why Raw Footage wasn't CRYSTAL, but Detox has much more refs and he says this is CRYSTAL-balling, makes no sense. - Keep It Real - Real Compton G 15:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would vote for a keep, only because, if this article, can stay (as what some call the "holy grail"), seeing as that article only has a few refs, then this article, (which has many, and is considered the "hip-hop holy grail"), should be able to stay also. --JpGrB 16:54, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 04:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halloweentown: She's The Witch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Halloweentown: She's The Witch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Prod deleted. NrDg 21:28, 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. Addhoc 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep cancer[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and might constitute a hoax. John254 21:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a hoax. There would be sections about it on medical sites(ie: webMD.com) if it were real. Icestorm815 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cancer of the sleep? Arctic foxes? Delete as nonsense - I'd even argue that this is speediable as either nonsense or silly vandalism. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Hydrogen Iodide (HI!) 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as certain WP:HOAX. Even if the condition described exists, it clearly has nothing to do with cancer and so the unscientific terminology in the title gives this one away as a hoax. Cosmo0 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged it for a speedy as vandalism: the text is modified from the article Delirium. Thomjakobsen 21:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good find! It had the feel of modified text from another article, but I couldn't find which one - obviously I was searching for the wrong sentences. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, hoaxes and fiction are not eligible for speedy deletion.--Fabrictramp 21:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But surely lifting the text wholesale from another article puts it under "silly vandalism"? Thomjakobsen 22:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, fiction, or not notable due to lack of ghits with this meaning. Take your pick.--Fabrictramp 21:58, 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. PeaceNT 13:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Smith (poet)[edit]

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

There's a definite lack of any references asserting notability. The only apparent claim for notability in the article is the book Organic Furniture Cellar, for which references are all blogs except for Jessica Smith's press and an article which quotes one of the blogs afore mentioned at the beginning. Slarti (1992) 21:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Blog or self-published (logroll) "reviews" are not reliable sources. The Constant Critic review looks semi-notable, but if that's all we've got that's not really much. Wait until she's reviewed by major poetry magazines. Fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'll click on the link, you'll notice that the review has curiously dissapeared... it was working yesterday. --Slarti (1992) 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Springnuts 22:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Smacks of self-promotion. —  MusicMaker5376 02:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think delete - all seems to be references to blogs, which are not reliable sources for verifying notability. I removed references to blogs and put them in the external links. I don't have time right now to search for more reliable sources. --Rocksanddirt 15:05, 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. PeaceNT 13:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OmniTrace[edit]

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

Delete basically an advertisement for this firm, which has no 3rd party sources showing any notability. Carlossuarez46 20:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to assert notability, nor any real evidence of significant third-party coverage. Tx17777 21:06, 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 All --JForget 01:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KidCrusher[edit]

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

Australian death metal artist "well known by the world wide web", but with pretty weak claims of notability as far as I can see. Released an album on what the article claims is a major record label, but doesn't look like one to me - Foctam Records. Claims to have got to number 3 on several (unspecified) Australian independent music charts, which seems odd with worldwide sales of 300. Another record sold 4000 copies, allegedly. Currently Seeking Label. None of the sources look reliable Created by User:Foctam, so probably WP:COI issues as well. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating his assorted albums and his alternative persona:

Tormented Mutation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Light to Dark and Life to Death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meet the Monstors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cannibal Clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Chronic Sinner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. —Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of marketing puff, but "sold over 300 copies world wide"? Come on. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-Wiki Notable. Springnuts 22:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete for now. the main KidCrusher page, he seems to have some sources at the bottom. Delete the others. SolidPlaid 02:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The "references" that SolidPlaid refers to are merely links to his personal website, a label's website (which happens to share the name of the editor who created the article), and a couple of news front page links that don't have anything to do with him. The "Fangoria" one is only a press release. None of these meet the suggested criteria for a reliable source. Wickethewok 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess an article can always be made once good sources are found. I looked at all 138 ghits, nothing helps. SolidPlaid 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The artist fails WP:MUSIC, therefore the daughter articles do, too. (I do love articles nearly devoid of capital letters and punctuation, though....) —  MusicMaker5376 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per failing WP:BAND 'n' the lack of reliable sources. and the albums too, obviously. tomasz. 02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Google News and Google News Archive has no record of him. [1]. Charts appear to community TV station and Myspace charts. No reliable sources at the moment. [2]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Antetote. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A distinct lack of independent reliable sources asserting notability. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:20, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Adolini[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Jbeach sup 20:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article doesn't seem to state that this person is an actual character, as much as imply that it's all backstory. Plot points don't get their own articles. —  MusicMaker5376 02:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep B1atv 14:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Baby scoop era[edit]

Baby scoop era (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete POV-pushing neologism masquerading as an encyclopedia article; what's next Back Alley Abortion era for the same period, or the Baby-killing era using the other POV for the post-Roe v. Wade period. WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX Carlossuarez46 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep.The Baby Scoop Era is a verifiable period in American cultural history during which the newborns of single mothers were taken at birth -- coercively, and sometimes even illegally -- for adoption. These babies were placed into closed adoptions. The adoption records remain sealed in 48 states to this day. This period of history has been documented in scholarly books such as "Wake Up Little Suzie" and "Beggars And Choosers" both by Rickie Sollinger, and social histories such as "The Girls Who Went Away" by Ann Fessler. It has been the theme of documentary movies such as "Gone To A Good Home" and "Love, War, Adoption" as well as the subject of numerous newspaper and magazine articles. Bseri 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Seems to be fairly well-established for a neologism (at least on the web) and the article doesn't come across as particularly POV. Cosmo0 22:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Yes, the term "Baby Scoop Era" has recently (i.e. within the past 10 years) been coined. On this basis it could be considered a "neologism" or new term, but the article itself is on the social period that it refers to, what its characteristics are from a socio-historical POV. It is of interest to historians, sociologists, social work professionals, and women's studies scholars and it has been studied as a unique phenomena by serious researchers. Cedartrees (disclosure: primary author of article) — 22:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • KeepWeak keep Referenced and somewhat common. i kan reed 22:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**modifying vote per MusicMaker i kan reed 05:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete The keep vote by the original author has made it clear that this was meant as an argument against abortion covered as an article. A re-read of the article with that in mind makes it clear there's no real encyclopedic content involved. If the article is kept it should be rewritten as a documentation of the neologism(which does, in fact appear to have a reasonably common usage). In particular, WP:NOT#Soapbox applies strongly. i kan reed 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Dubiously referenced, relying mainly on sources from one author. Seems to have at least moderate usage in the lexicon, though. —  MusicMaker5376 02:53, 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. MaxSem 07:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comitatus (re-enactment)[edit]

Comitatus (re-enactment) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

  • Delete They seem to have done a decent amount of historical research, but that's not the point of a Wikipedia article. Nyttend 15:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the original drafter of the page and thus declare my interest. Reasoning: 1 The primary purpose of the article is to provide disambiguation from political group(s?) identified by the name 'Comitatus Posse' as well as the other entries currently on the disambiguation page. 2 I started by stylistically echoing entries for similar groups in the UK - (Regia Anglorum and The Vikings). 3 In an attempt to improve the entry more clearly to the purposes of Wikipedia, I have tried to address some of the issues within re-enactment that keep getting deleted from the more general subject entries (just look at the wars over at the 'Roman Military Equipment' page!), included references which I hope will be of use to someone doing research in the area and, to avoid promotion, added external links to other Late Roman groups, which do not have entries themselves yet. If there are other stylistic issues (too much info? I will happily re-edit. 4 Within re-enactment in the UK and Roman Re-enactment world-wide the group is already notable. I have just added the (now first) reference to a book published this year about the period which is based on the group's work, so I think the 'coverage' is about to increase dramatically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvianus (talk • contribs) 21:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When researching the world of the Late Roman period on the web, sadly the word Comitatus leads to various political groupings of the modern era. However as it stands this entry gives access to the leading research group recreating the Late Roman period in Europe. They do have a significant profile which includes sponsoring archeological conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Portreath (talk • contribs) 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC) — Portreath (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Secret sup 20:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of secondary coverage supporting the group's notability. The references in the article are to works on Roman history, with no mention of the group. A news archive search does find a couple of mentions in the local press, but they are descriptions of upcoming events of the "What's On" variety, and not evidence of notability. Thomjakobsen 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bunch of links establishing facts about Roman history does nothing to establish notability. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the cited sources support the notability of the subject of the article—viz, Comitatus (re-enactment). Deor 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well-referenced, if the article were on another subject entirely. —  MusicMaker5376 02:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIPADL[edit]

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

Delete unsourced nn theory attributed to nn person about how to analyze common law cases. Everyone can have a theory, but this has no demonstration of notability nor does its alleged proponent. Carlossuarez46 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 20:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood Movies inspired from English Movies[edit]

List of Bollywood Movies inspired from English Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Bollywood films and plagiarism covers the topic. This list is purely WP:OR. The article should be deleted and the content in the first paragraph merged into Bollywood films and plagiarism. Toddstreat1 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Bollywood films and plagiarism. Same topic, just a few different examples which can easily inserted into the existing article if they can be verified. Tx17777 20:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Having looked at both lists, I'm not so sure that the "Bollywood plagiarism" article, with its inflammatory title, shouldn't be merged into this one, although the other article has the more easily maintained format. However, I think both can exist. In both cases, they're covering a worthy topic, and Bollywood articles should be encouraged to offset the "American college boy" bias of Wikipedia. Problems with citations and O/R can be remedied. The article was just created on Wednesday. Mandsford 21:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true there is a possible question of a POV issue with the title of Bollywood films and plagiarism. Perhaps Bollywood films accused of plagiarism would be a better compromise. However, what is certain in my mind is that they shouldn't co-exist alongside each other as they do cover exactly the same ground. Tx17777 21:10, 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. Wizardman 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Rfanklib[edit]

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

Delete local store changes name, is in process of a re-do, covered by local newspaper. Not notable. Carlossuarez46 20:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Has generated local coverage, but it's of the Local store infested with rats: police officer "felt nauseous" variety, rather than the kind that warrants an encyclopedia article. Thomjakobsen 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability, if there is any, will be fleeting. —  MusicMaker5376 03:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My franchisor took away my right to say "delete", so I'll rearrange the letters and say "-edeet" (that's an L turned sideways). Seriously, though, there are only two or three reliable sources about the store. It's quite likely that the store has since went out of business. After all, who would want to shop at a store that smells like animal waste and that has mice running around? And if nobody is shopping there, they probably can't pay the rent or utilities (if they haven't been disconnected already) or their property taxes. In the end, it's most likely just another store closing with a slightly amusing sign. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:29, 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. Anthøny 22:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philippa Hanna[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BAND - unsourced blp about singer with one album, nn. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Lots of buzz about her on the Internet. I've added info and cites. Bearian 23:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lack of any reliable coverage in the first 100 search hits. The "Sandman Magazine" reference looked promising, but it turns out to be a free magazine distributed to local music venues, presumably supported by advertising from those venues, and naturally covers minor local gigs played in those same venues rather than being an accurate indication of notability. Thomjakobsen 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided establishing notability. The UK tour is a couple of nights in Sheffield, for which two of the 'sources' are Eccleshall Parish Church website. Nuttah68 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Added extra content, sources and cites. Arnie1971 22:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The presented sources do not include the multiple, independent, reliable sources that are needed per WP:N. Eluchil404 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article needs to be tagged as a stub for now. This is what it is due to lack of content.--Libertyguy 22:35, 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. W.marsh 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PiX Bros[edit]

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

This is a video game that has no substantial information about it published in any reliable sources (those with a reputation for fact-checking). The only sources for it are either trivial listings (download sites), blog mentions (LinuxJuegos), wikis (Ubuntu Italy), or other unreliable sources (some personal Japanese website on a free web host). Even conflict of interest aside (I believe the article creator is one of the game's developers), there is no coverage from any reliable publications that demonstrates any notability or ability to fact-check the article without original research. Also nominating PiX Frogger and PiX Pang for the same reasons. Wickethewok 20:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I'm the one who created those articles and I'm also the director of the group PiX Juegos. Also, about Conflict of Interest, I must say that we're a group that developes open source games that are published for free and we have no benefits from all this, just we want to create games for the open source community. Well, I don't understand why those sources aren't perfectly reliable. Some of them are blogs, wellknown blogs that bring PiX Juegos' page many people that are interested in those games. And also, the italian Ubuntu wiki doesn't let anyone modify it, just people from the LoCo, so I think it's not the same as any other wiki. Anyway, I wanted to demostrate the notability of the games by showing links of english, italian and even japanese people reviewing them, I think it's enough. By the way, I created those pages in order to have those games included in this list: Alphabetical list of open source games‎ Panreyes 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe you are incorrect about the Ubuntu wiki: I logged in and edited an arbitrary article on it (I then reverted my change fyi), so it does appear that they let anyone modify it. Wickethewok 03:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While WP:COI is not a reason in and of itself for deletion, these articles are nearly devoid of content and make no claims of notability. Existence is not notability. —  MusicMaker5376 20:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I mean, I just took PySol as a template in order to create those pages, and PySol has not demostrated more notability and it's even lees info that PiX' games. What I don't understand is that, where's the problem about leaving PiX'games pages just as they are? I'm not used to write in english, so I cannot write more info on them because I don't know how to say many things. Anyway, what I meant is, I just would like to have them mentioned in that list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panreyes (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, now I see... Now PySol is also marked for deletion. Thank you "EDITORS" for destroying the english Wikipedia :P Panreyes 02:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources - wikis and blogs don't meet the threshold. -- Whpq 15:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck the pages, I've added more sources, between them are an inclusion into Debian Sid of PiX Frogger, a PiX Bros mention in the national spanish public television and links of Indie Game Showcase. I still think they were enough.Panreyes 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I concur that a reasonable threshold for significance appears unmet. This is no slight to PiX-anything, but the article at present fails to demonstrate PiX Bros as a notable game title. I see a lot of External Links that constitute synopses of game features, but not much else. The YouTube clip is interesting, but PiX Bros doesn't appear to be the focus. Question/Comment - Is it appropriate to group the three articles mentioned in the AfD together and treat them as a whole rather than three separate requests? D. Brodale 03:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the grouping is appropriate, as each article seems to have almost the same sources/listings and amount of coverage. Wickethewok 03:54, 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--JForget 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWF Halftime Heat[edit]

WWF Halftime Heat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is only one match that isn't notable enough to stand on its own. It should only be mentioned in the Rock and Mick Foley's articles. DrWarpMind 19:27, 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. Wizardman 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Could Care Less[edit]

I Could Care Less (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable song. Although it was released as a single, I don't believe that it is notable in its own right. I can find no sources, nor see any reason it could be considered notable. J Milburn 18:39, 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. Wizardman 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Bone[edit]

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

Complete Hoax τßōиЄ2001 18:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gsearch not coming up with reliable non-wiki sources to confirm. --Fabrictramp 19:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete hoax. <eleland/talkedits> 21:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, hoaxes aren't eligible for speedy deletion.--Fabrictramp 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sux. :( <eleland/talkedits> 21:58, 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 JForget 01:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Probable Buddhas And Bodhisattvas In Human History[edit]

List Of Probable Buddhas And Bodhisattvas In Human History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

To avoid offending the author, let us just say "original research" and leave it at that. -- RHaworth 18:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First let me ask what life are you on? I composed this list. Though I suppose it should be linked to the Buddha article and have more explanation and would be better off with more research (a thing I'm not big on). Mostly I just believe you doubt my Buddhahood and knowledge. Buddhahood can be ascertained with proper knowledge. Delete it if you want. I know the truth and am trying to spread it. The List of Buddha claimants is absolute garbage. So is the current state of the world and changes need to be made.Ezdan1022 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezdan1022 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the smartass who posted [citation needed] on the preceding comment? DO NOT edit other people's posts. You may not agree with Ezdan, but he's got the same rights as any other user. Mandsford 23:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am the, as you so delicately put it, smartass, who posted the fact tag. It was not, as you seem to assume, meant to insinuate that he was not in his right to post what he wants. It was meant to request sources to back up one particular sentence, which otherwise may be perceived to have only limited value for the discussion. Mlewan 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I know the truth and am trying to spread it"..."changes need to be made". Kinda says it all really. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Tx17777 20:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and possible hoax. --Hnsampat 19:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not verifiable. Mlewan 20:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator is gracious about this one. Whatever life you're on, Haworth, may it be a long and prosperous one. Ezdan, I hope that your issues can be resolved. You seem to be a good person who may need to seek help. Mandsford 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My above statement was fueled by a little ire. I need to do more research on this to verify all as correct as possible. Right now I am %50 or more sure. It is a project I will continue with. But that is no worse than that Buddha claimants list. I don't need to seek help. And the list is pretty accurate. It is an ability as a 9th Life Enlightened Buddha on The Path of No More Learning I have ascertained. I have also composed a Utopia guideline to have peace on Earth and etc. Delete it if you want I will bear no hard feelings currently. If only for I should do more research, though I am pretty much satisfied with my work so far. And I don't appreciate people questioning my intelligence. I know who I am. and this signature thing and navigating Wki is new to me. Instead of knocking me you should be asking me how I composed the list.Ezdan1022 21:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Ezdan1022 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezdan1022 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Ezdan1022 21:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say that you yourself have composed this list and freely admit that it is your own research. While I appreciate you may be new to wikipedia, I suggest you read the WP:OR section so you may understand the objections people have to this article. Tx17777 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How did you compose the list? Mlewan 22:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm interested too. How did you compose the list of these particularly persons? Click on the name and it takes you to my talk page. One can say anything in a discussion or talk page on Wikipedia as long as it remains civil. But bear in mind that a Wikipedia article isn't the place for any of us to post out own original ideas and insights. Mandsford 23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm never going to be able to listen to Scott Weiland the same way again. Or Mozart. Do I doubt your Buddhahood? In a word, yes. Cosmo0 22:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, Jimi Hendrix? Michelangelo? William Shakespeare? Come on, this is definitely either a hoax or just some sort of joke. Either way, non notable. I think it would be an interesting list if some research was put into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IamMcLovin (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as EXTREMELY original research. As someone who has had some experience with mania-induced God complexes, this has many of the classic qualities. I had a plan to save the world once, too. Luckily, this was before I found WP, so I didn't create an article on MusicMaker5376 as Messiah. Too bad. —  MusicMaker5376 03:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per obvious. "List Of Improbable Buddhas And Bodhisattvas In Human History" would have been a far more interesting hoax (though it might have contained many of the same candidates). --Folantin 07:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I am the "atleast one moron" referred to in your myspace blog entry (now deleted), please refer to me by name and link to my page on myspace ! -- RHaworth 08:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this is funny and some of it is sad. I tell you as a Buddha I have gained the ability to ascertain approx where everyone is on the Samsara scale. This is my last life and I'm on the Path of No More Learning. So not to be humble I know everything now and I'm leaving soon. And in some ways I hope really soon. And one person said Wiki is not a soapbox. This is true to a great extent but this is the Talk section so a soapbox seems permissible to me. And as I said in the article Buddhas know their enlightened and Bodhisattvas are enlightened and enact enlightened but don't seem to be totally aware of it. The inclusion of Scott Weiland was a bone of contention with a Life 8 person I know. The 2 components of figuring out Buddhahood are looks and intelligence. Buddhas have a distinct look to them. Not to be offensive to anyone but they are usually good looking. For an accurate description of the looks indicator see some the Physical Buddha Features List on here somewhere. And also intelligence and usually artistic intelligence. The artistic intelligence usually consists of a pure exuberance or singularity of creation. Most importantly I must say that in the end it comes to looking at someone to see if the battle of Good and Evil is still raging inside their heads. Buddhas are released from the battle of Good and Evil and it shows in their looks and their demeanor. Sorry all you scientists though you accomplishments are great and I cannot build a rocket or expalain quantum physics. Artists seem to be the utlimate accomplishment of people. After all when we have Utopian technology we aren't going to be worried about engineering things anymore we will be able to create a world of art. I surmise this Star Trek technology is far off but it is not hard to imagine it just go watch Star Trek. And I'm also upset someone deleted my New World Utopia guidelines. Yes we can have peace on Earth and everywhere else we all just need to be EQUAL. It's very simple people. Utopianism 1. We must do away with all form of monetary funds; we are just supplying a service. 2. We must do away with competition. Company A and Company B are making the same thing. There is simply no point. 3. The issue of a practical energy source. We need to develop other sources of energy in lieu of eventually getting of this planet. 4. We should initially refurbish housing of all to pleasing and acceptable standards then for every family unit to inhabit equitable residences. 5. We develop a free universal health care system. 6. The issue of the penal system. Prisons need to be less cruel and inhumane. 7. Education is free. 8. Our world governments shall dissolve under the above system concentrating a great extent on space exploration in lieu of the fact that Earth will not last forever. 9. The above steps will allow for an alleviated workload on ourselves meaning our times of labor will be cut in half if we wish. 10. Lastly not least, the above will allow us for more time to create a world of art. I sent this to Barack Obama and he reads my MySpace e-mails regularly. He is about a Life 7 or 6 I would say. This is just from memory without looking at his pic or anything. Samsara scale isn't so easy. You should try. And ascertaining these individuals get harder the further back you go because of lack of photos, video and history. Admittedly this list needs further work so the deletion of it I do not object to. It is on my MySpace blog so anyone can look at it there. But I am upset obout someone deleting my Utopia guidelines and leaving that old antiquated info that claims there can be no Utopia. There can be Utopian and peace on Earth when we are all equal. Except that research section at the end. That claimed essentially we can have peace on Earth thru a global effort. Which is true we can't set up the world equally w/o a concerted effort. As far as the Buddha List being a hoax. Whatever I'm laughing at that. And as far as the fact that I need to seek help. I'm trying not to be insulting here but you should be the one seeking help if you haven't achieved enlightenment yet. It's really easy unless you wanna stick around on Earth alot longer which I guess is OK. My life has kinda sucked through alot of fault of my own so I'm not to keen on Earth right now. Asides from the issues I have with the needless suffering humanity endures I'm not talking war I'm talking deformity and disease and pain. But I am real pissed someone deleted my New World Utopia edit and I may put it back up there. And I am using real criteria to ascertain Buddhahood so w/e on that too. But I understand the nascence of this art so I understand your objection. And yes I called you Wiki Pharisees and morons. When someone is posting the TRUTH and some small minded person deletes it. Well I hope that suffices. and don't think I didn't know you people would come out of the woodwork for this. I also think Star Wars is 3 more films and it is on my Blog feel free to peruse. And yes I have tried to get it to George Lucas but who knows if he has gotten it. Hollywood lives in an Ivory Tower and so does Washington D.C. to an extent - but not as much as Hollywood. Oh and sorry someone please write an article on my Alec Kipling story it'll help get my films made - hopefully. It's all on my blog. Sorry off topic.Ezdan1022 14:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your article will, in all likelihood, be deleted. Please do not take it personally should this happen. There are rules that govern what gets kept on Wikipedia, and that is the cost that comes with the benefit. You appear to be an intelligent individual who is overworked and is dealing with a lot of stress and frustration. It happens to all of us at one time or another. You will not be surrendering your beliefs, nor betraying your faith, by getting help or by taking some time for yourself. Mandsford 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying my article is not the truth? Or the closest approximation to it able to ascertained at this time? WELL IT IS. Are you afraid of the truth? Can you not handle the truth? Apparently so. Delete the article if you wish. It is a close approximation of the truth though further research is needed to display the information in the most pristine state as possible. As I have stated my abilities for ascertaining the list above that may develop further but are about as good as they are going to get. Short of further studying the history, images and output of the individuals. Which I really don't care to do I'm an enlightened being on my last life all I really have to do is enjoy the bliss I have achieved and get out of here. I don't appreciate any people telling me I suffer from stress or what-have-you. I am an enlightened being and from the information all the individuals presently have displayed you are not. Work hard to seek your salvation because attacking my sanity has gotten annoying. Look at the list on my MySpace blog.Ezdan1022 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezdan, if you have a blog, I think you have the answer. Your writings to not fit in Wikipedia, as they are not sourced - it does not matter if they are the truth or not. However, they are perfect material for a blog. Post all of them there. Whoever searches shall find your blog. Mlewan 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well all things were not sourced until they were sourced. Atleast that is true for alot of the non-scientific material on here as it applies to spritual matters or pseudo-spiritual matters and other stuff. Just look at the list of Buddha claimants for that fact. Dalai Lama ain't no Buddha. And neither is that Buddha kid that sits under a tree and twiddles his thumbs. Or a few of those dumb white guys on there. But the list says claimants as my list says probable. As far as a scientific or artistic study of the Samsara scale is concerned it could be done. But would be part artistic, a little science, and alot of faith. Nevertheless any such study would require alot more resources than I have at my disposal. Well anyways. Atleast some of you have apprently been swayed to my validity as RHaworth has requested to be my friend on MySpace and I have approved. Thank you for your patience and consideration on this matter. If anyone would like to inquire further of the ability of the "Samsara Scale" e-mail me at [email protected]. Though I surmise you may have all attained suffice information to satiate you until you achieve enlightenment yourself.Ezdan1022 23:16, 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. Eluchil404 04:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Samusenko[edit]

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

PROD for failing to assert notability was removed. Has received an Order of the Red Star, but the decoration has been awarded to over 2 million individuals, according to the wikipedia article. Martijn Hoekstra 18:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but she commanded a T-34 unit, this background seems to be eminent as this type of tank played a significant role on the WWII Eastern Front. And, first of all there is no conflict with the basic criteria of WP:BIO: though it's a stub so far, there is enough information IMO. The girl is also the subject of at least one published secondary source which I consider reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. --Brand спойт 18:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, over 2 million individuals is a normal proportion regarding the Soviet population. Yes, it's unusual for example for the UK, but is common for the USSR. I'm not a pro-Soviet, but let's stick to facts. Let's compare the bestowing criteria with some other awards, for which there are recipient categories. The Order of the Red Star is awarded "for outstanding achievements in the defense of the USSR and for actions in maintaining state security in times of peace"[3]. The criterium for George Medal is similar: for "acts of great bravery". Silver Star's criterium looks even more moderate: "gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States". The list could go forth. Despite of that I don't stand up for inclusion of all the recipients, I simply think that this particular case deserves the inclusion because the presence of Soviet female tankmen in the WWII is far less evident than that of female snipers or pilots. Lieutenant Colonel and military journalist Vadim Kozhukhov also confirms that. --Brand спойт 09:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sorry, but it seems that you're trying to use the article to make a point. Using an article about one particular tankwoman as a tribute to all the others who fought in the war isn't a valid reason to keep it. Clarityfiend 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I think that she is notable because there were few Soviet female tankmen. --Brand спойт 13:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I'm tempted otherwise largely on the basis of her engaging smile. Soviet women soldiers were not rare and normally jsut being a tank commander and receiving a common service medal would not be noteworthy. There are women who received Hero of the Soviet Union and other unquestionably notable medals. --Dhartung | Talk 18:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind the prevalence of male tank commanders (not tankmen and not only in WWII) and WP:IAR, I'd rather regard her as worthy of mention. --Brand спойт 19:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, but if there's a Smilopedia, she definitely should be in it. Clarityfiend 23:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ultimately NN. (Though I must commend the authors on using both "shitless" and "rapprochement" within ten words of each other....) —  MusicMaker5376 20:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now smells like a snowballed filibuster, but let it be :) --Brand спойт 14:48, 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. W.marsh 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goosed![edit]

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

Children's book. No claim of notability and no evidence that it meets the criteria of the relevant notability guideline. Pascal.Tesson 17:35, 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. W.marsh 20:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rodgers (footballer)[edit]

Paul Rodgers (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Football player who has not yet played a first team game for a club in a fully professional league. Tx17777 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - is a full professional and a registered first-team squad member. [4] Qwghlm 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The concensus on notability of football players is pretty clear and is summed up well by the nom. Being included in the squad given to UEFA at the start of the competition does not mean he will even get as far sitting on the bench. If and when he gets a first team game the article can be recreated. Nuttah68 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - registered first-team squad member at a very large club. ArtVandelay13 21:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 21:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per discussion above. Da-rb 21:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per Nuttah68 and per nom. Probably only given a UEFA squad number because he was under 18 in September and therefore doesn't count towards the squad quota anyway. Can be recreated if he does play. Peanut4 22:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He gets an article when he plays for the team, not before. Nick mallory 01:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Qwghlm and ArtVandelay13.
I would say he is a lot more notable (in the general, non-Wiki sense of the word) than Robert Grant of Accrington Stanley, but slightly less notable than Sergio Tejera of Chelsea FC. I questioned the absolute requirement of professional league football in the current notability criteria in a discussion on Talk:WPF, with the discussion, you might say, ending 2-2. The current criteria seems clear; appearance in a game in a professional league is notable, wich means one game in League 2 is notable but a glowing cup-run in a youth World Cup or maybe even the FA cup is not. However, I am questioning the concensus on the strict interpretation of the criteria. It seems half of those who have voted in this discussion would say that appearance in a professional league not is an absolutely necessary requirement for notability. My interpretation of AfD:Curtis Osano is that professional league football not is required for notability and that there is no concensus on keeping such a literal interpretation of the criteria. I'm sorry to say, but maybe we need to have a new discussion about the notability criteria. This time with more than four participants. Sebisthlm 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's a member of the Champions League squad, which tells you something - out of the 30 players or whatever in the reserve squad (including the 2 million pound signing Havard Nordtveit, who is supposedly "more notable" than this guy according to Wikipedia rules), he is one of the few that is considered close to the first team. Anyway, I think it's been fairly established that someone who has a first-team squad number for a top tier club is notable himself. ugen64 03:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Professional football/soccer player in a very prestigious club, arguably one of the best in the world. To say he hasn't yet "played" on the field in a game for the team and therefore fails the Athletes clause in WP:BIO is Wikilawyering semantics. --Oakshade 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails both the letter and the spirit of WP:BIO. Recreate when and if he makes a first team appearance. - fchd 08:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the talk history of WP:BIO and what the writers purposes were, this person very much passes the spirit of WP:BIO. Standing members of professional teams are notable. --Oakshade 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't a member of the team yet though. Once he is, and makes an appearance, then he passes. - fchd 11:15, 23 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» 08:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So we keep everybody in the Arsenal squad except him? And what about the other Arse squad members who haven't made a first team performance? He wouldn't be in the squad aged 18 unless he had huge potential (£$£$), and even if he doesn't make it at Arsenal he can certainly play at lower league clubs right now. This means the article will be recreated before long if it is deleted. Operating 23:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as per WP:BIO, any player that hasn't made an appearance in a fully professional league is not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. A fairly quick end to this AFD. If Rodgers makes an appearances, his article can be undeleted. We shouldn't assume anything... the player may have potential, but first he has to deliver that potential before being worthy of an article. robwingfield «T•C» 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO says no such thing. --Oakshade 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. WP:BIO doesn't say a player has to make 1+ professional appearances to be notable does it? I've never seen that...there are already far more sources for this player than many lower league players who have article pages. Agreed wp isn't a crystal ball but unless he gets hit by lightning in the next few months he'll be back on wp and the Afd will be something of a waste of time. This begs the question why delete?...it also begs the question why did i bother replying? so i'll leave it here, and just be happy the Arse decided to find an English player for a change :) Operating 00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:BIO says "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are generally notable". Awarding a jersey number to a player is not enough to give him notability, and moreover notability is not temporary. --Angelo 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league are generally notable" alone, it's not possible to draw the conclusion that competitors who not have played in such a league automatically (not even generally) is NN. Sebisthlm 09:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite right, they can be notable for other reasons without having the appearances. However, in this case the only claim to notability is being given a squad number by a Premier League team. There is no evidence of international youth honours, awards or the such like. Nuttah68 09:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Arsenal have the best youth system in England and possibly the best in the world. Getting a shirt in the full squad does make him notable in my opinion. If he'd merely got a shirt number for say Fulham FC, this would be different. Operating 10:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He is in the squad to make up the numbers of the six home grown players under CL regulations and barring an injury crisis is never going to play a CL game. To date he's not even played a League or FA Cup game, the usual route for a young player coming through. Nuttah68 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He signed his first professional contract at the beginning of this season. The FA Cup hasn't started yet and Arsenal have recently played their first round of the League Cup. Operating 12:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Exactly, he has done nothing that satisfies the guidelines and no one has offered anything else that could be construed as achieving notability in another way. That is apart from a number POV statements that being a player who has recently signed his first professional contract at Arsenal makes him notable as that is more important than doing the same at another club. Nuttah68 12:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm afraid you can't have read this discussion very carefully. Let me sum up the arguments for keeping this article (which are basically the same for all 'keepers'. 1) Yes, we know the general criteria normally requires professional league football. 2) We, however, don't agree with this criteria, either in this particular case or in principle, and think that inclusion in a squad for the Champions League (the World's most notable club competition) for a club as Arsenal (one of the World's most notable clubs) asserts notability, even if the player hasn't yet played in the competition.
The reason to oppose the criteria is that there is no distinction of the importance of different professional competitions (i.e. an appearence in League 2 is equally notable as an appearence in the PL) wich is contrary to the very concept of notability. I don't think it is such an outlandish idea that the requirement of appearence could be different depending on the importance of the club or the competition. Perhaps notability for a League 2 footballer should require more than just one appearence in the league, while youth internationals bought by big clubs for millions of pounds might be concidered notable even before their debut. And POV? Isn't that the whole point with these discussions? Especially when the quote from WP:BIO that you would like us all to just quote over and over is so vague. My question to you, Nuttah68, is do you really think that Robert Grant is more notable than Rodgers. And please try to answer without just referring to the criteria in WP:BIO. Respectfully, Sebisthlm 02:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentNo, I've read the discussion and followed it thank you. You want to change the guidelines, fair enough I have no problem with you starting a discussion in the appropriate place. However, that guideline was based on the reasoning that match reports in newspapers meet the general notability guideline of "The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. - If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability" If someone offers a claim to notability based on different critera using independent coverage rather than POV statements I will reconsider. Nuttah68 08:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia has guidelines but not rules. The purpose of talk pages is to come to a consensus based on individual circumstances. That is what we are doing right now, the guidelines dont fully apply in this case. Operating 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yes it's true I oppose the current criteria in principle (or at least the literal interpretation of it) and want to modify it. I wouldn't be so smug as to take for granted that all those who want to keep this article agree with me on this though. It is possible to want to keep the article in this particular case, without actually wanting to change the criteria. Either you might concede that the article doesn't meet WP:BIO, but want to keep the article anyway by WP:IGNORE, or you might think that the article, if not meets the criteria, doesn't at least conflict with it. As I commented on Angelo's quote of WP:BIO, by "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league" are generally notable" you can't draw the opposite conclusion that lack of appearence in such a competition automatically fail notability (wich also explicitily is stated in the beginning of the 'additional criteria' paragraph on WP:BIO). Sebisthlm 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd be of exactly the opposite view - if he got a shirt number at Fulham, he'd be much nearer making a fully professional appearance! Still non-notable in my view. Oh, and if Arsenal have the best youth system in England, how come they didn't win the FA Youth Cup last season? - fchd 11:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arsenal went out of the FA Youth Cup after extra time against Manchester United. Losing one game doesn't determine who has the best youth team in the country. If Barnet beat Arsenal in the FA Cup, that wouldn't make Barnet a better team than Arsenal. Cg29692 12:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Possibly so, but (no offence to Fulham) being closer to first-team football at Fulham than at Arsenal doesn't make a player more notable IMHO. Sebisthlm 11:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no doubt that Rodgers will, within the next year at least, play football in a professional league or cup. He is only 18 and will go on to play professional football quite soon, and will pass the notability criteria quite soon. An example of where the criteria should come into play is, for example, what happened at Barnet F.C. last season, when a man named Chris Emery signed a contract with Barnet and was issued a squad number. However he was simply a fan of the club who had won a competition, he wasn't a footballer, he had no future in the game, so therefore an article wasn't created. Cg29692 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:IGNORE. Deleting this article *now* will not help to improve WP. Spending effort going through an AFD on this article, for it then to have to be recreated when he makes his 1st appearance later this season, having to find references all over again, update the squad template... Give it a couple of months, if he's not been picked, then maybe AFD it. Paulbrock 23:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has played in a friendly for the Arsenal first team against Barnet - see his Profile at [5], where you will find this (quote): "His performances caught the eye of the Club’s management and he signed professional terms at the start of the 2007/2008 campaign. He made his first appearance for the first team soon after, as a second-half substitute in a 2-0 friendly win over Barnet." On this occasion and not ordinarily, I believe that his having played in a friendly for a team which competes in a fully professional league should suffice for the purposes of notability. Ref (chew)(do) 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deleting this article will not help the encyclopedia. This is a case for IAR. Even then, the player has played a professional game as highlighted above. Being given a professional contract by Arsenal and then put into the squad gives some indication of notability. Woodym555 09:06, 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. Eluchil404 05:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebon[edit]

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

Non-notable music group, having only released a handful of tracks, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). Additionally, may consist largely of a copyvio from discogs, and/or may have been written by band member Justin Whedon - Jwhedon (talk · contribs). heqs ·:. 16:47, 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. PeaceNT 13:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dawg[edit]

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

Non notable person, the article is completely unsourced and a lot of it is a point of view rather than accurate fact. AngelOfSadness talk 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Gsearch also doesn't come up with sources.--Fabrictramp 15:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no sources Pilotbob 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a personal essay, not an encyclopaedic entry. Tx17777 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else and there's also advertising for a music download site. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reads like an attempt at "hilarious" WP:HOAXing or in-joke, needless to say it isn't, nor is it true, or sourced, get rid of it. tomasz. 10:13, 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.

I know that Jim Dawg was real because I know him personally...and the proof of his existence and the songs mentioned...thus...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hOh9onO8aA4 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=b-vony0DGwU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.151.38 (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of champion snooker players[edit]

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

(Renamed from List of notable snooker players). The Transhumanist 23:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subjective and undefinable list. Quite aside from the strong implication that any other players not on this list aren't notable (thereby potentially provoking a huge WP:N debate) there seems to be no set criteria for inclusion on this list, other than a subjective opinion which can easily be challenged and argued over ad nauseum. The opening sentence says "champion players", but champion of what? There is an article already for World Championship winners, and if any sort of competition win is criteria enough, where do you draw the line? For example, why is Marco Fu, a player who has never won a ranking event, on the list whereas other players with comparable achievements are not? In my opinion, the articles List of World Snooker Champions and List of snooker players are useful enough and make this list irrelevant. Tx17777 15:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am happy to find a suitable compromise on what the name of the article is. The original point of the article is exactly what you highlighted. A "List of snooker players" can become as lengthy as anyone who has ever picked up a cue - even a "List of professional snooker players" would still run into the very many of hundreds. Conversely a "List of world championship winners" specifically misses notable players who should be mentioned, Jimmy White being possibly the most obvious one. Thus the original aim of the article was to cover the ground between the big winners and the many hundreds who have picked up a cue in professional circles. I don't know that this is best served through the channels of an AfD, and would be happier to find a solution through the article talk page - my faith in AfD these days is low - folks with a deletionist mindset browse by, see the words "list" and "notable" and state that it should be deleted without giving any care for the reasons why the article exists as I just outlined. I am happy to find a name compromise, thus would suggest a Rename, decided by talk page discussion. SFC9394 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily concede that there is a place on Wikipedia for a list of top snooker players. I just feel that this particular article, in its current state, doesn't address this and lacks any sort of consensus as to who or what should be included - it feels more like one individual's "top 20 list". Neither do I feel that a rename to "List of top snoker players" as suggested on the talk page is a workable alternative (we're just getting into semantics there). Maybe a rename would be a good option to set a good base for a decent encyclopedic article if a suitable alternative is found, but only if we can settle on what acheivements are relevent. Tx17777 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per Jonathan. This list can be fixed up easily with a simply narrowing of criteria. His title clearly defines the list, and makes it workable per WP:LIST. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move as per SFC9394. I think everyone, including the nominator, seems to be in agreement that the problem is more the use of the word "notable" than the dreaded "L-word"; this is the best method of organizing information concerning the achievements of champion snooker players; I'm assuming that any non-champs have come close. Be bold, SFC, rename it anything you want. Mandsford 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (Renamed, that is.) The Transhumanist 23:53, 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 B1atv 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Searles Valley Minerals Inc.[edit]

Searles Valley Minerals Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. A ninety year old company and now subsid. No indication of why the company is notable beyond being the largest employer in a town of 1800. The only returns from Google news are about a lake on their land, not the company, and it appears that even press releases from the numerous changes of hand have not been covered. Beyond that there appear to be no reliable sources. Nuttah68 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delete- per nom and WP:CORP. The sunder king 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a WP:PERNOM within a minute of the AfD creation an no research whatsoever? --Oakshade 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to suggest? I seen the nomination on recent changes. Please keep the comments out I have been here a few months afterall. The sunder king 16:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is considered part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I don't think one minute within a creation of an AfD is nearly enough time to properly research and analyze an article's inclusion standards, particularly one with so many references that at least a few of them would take several minutes just to read. The article itself takes more than a minute to read. --Oakshade 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "A ninety year old company and now subsid" is not a reason to delete an article. An historic company with a long history in the Mojove Desert and owner of the Trona Railway. Besides the references already in the article, the history of this company is also included in this Los Angeles Daily News article [6]. It's why I created the article. --Oakshade 15:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No, the total lack of evidence of meeting WP:CORP is. A mention of the company in an article about Trona, even if it were included in the article, does not strengthen the case. Nuttah68 15:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to false comment - It's multiple in depth histories of this company, not just a single or passing "mention" or "directory listings" as defined as trivial by WP:CORP. You're losing credibility by misrepresenting the reliable sources having written about the history this company. Besides, almost the entire article is referenced by reliable sources. (Perhaps you feel the Searles Valley Historical Society is unreliable.) --Oakshade 16:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please assume good faith and leave out the attacks on other editors. The references currently in the article are a) a local history society, b) a newspaper article about Trona and c) a page from the Bureau Of Land Management website. Any editor choosing to make a comment at this AfD can read them for themselves. Nuttah68 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article about Trona and the in depth history of this company. Your "mention" stipulation is completely not based on reality. Local History societies are not unreliable as their publications are the result of extremely heavy research. Most people find the writings of a historical society very reliable over an anon Wikipedia editor. --Oakshade 16:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And those references are there for all to see and come to their own conclusions. I still fail to see why you feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of them? Nuttah68 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're completely misrepresenting the facts and that needs to be pointed out. Just found another article that writes in depth about this company [7]. Care to revise your "a mention" statement or are you going to continue to insist giving false information? --Oakshade 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • FFS, read what I wrote, or do you claim that this is about the company? I'll repeat my statement for you with explanation. I do not believe that the mention of the company in the article about Trona (the newspaper article linked to here) establishes notabilty for the company. I do not believe that the mention at the Bureau Of Land Management, again, establishes notability. Whilst I'm sure that the local history societies accounts are accurate, I do not believe that that alone establishes notability. Finally, I do not believe the three taken together establish notability. You obviously differ in your opinion, as may others, but I'll ask again, please AGF and cut out the attacks. Nuttah68 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Continuation of discussion) - Nuttah68, the coverage in The Daily Independant [8] (which so far you have completely ignored) and Los Angeles Daily News are not just "mentions" of this company. That is what you are completely making up. They are in depth secondary coverage per WP:CORP. Whe you say the company is simply "mentioned" in those articles, you are simply flat out wrong. --Oakshade 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update, yet another in depth article about this company has been found [9]. --Oakshade 19:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Sunder King. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:CORP satisfied although barely. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE - Two more articles that have in depth about this company have been added to the article.[10] [11]. --Oakshade 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade, plus the fact that there's more info in the article on this company, than the railroad company it owns/owned. ----DanTD 00:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree that most of the sources, while certainly reliable, are mostly trivial and useful only as references for facts documented in the article. The L.A. piece certainly seems in depth enough to easily meet the minimums of WP:CORP, however. I don't see anything what-so-ever that is promotional or non-neutral in the article. Kuru talk 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the "nationwide recognition and an award for its innovative solvent extraction process to recover boric acid and potassium sulfate from weak brines" is enough to establish notability. —  MusicMaker5376 20:40, 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. Whilst the argument put forward by Warofdreams (talk · contribs · logs) was interesting, the debate for a "Delete" closure was, unfortunately, considerably stronger. Anthøny 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stade Brikama[edit]

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

the unreferenced article is probably a fake, search a stadium by google earth..... you see nothing... (only the footballfield of the Gambia High School)


this picture shows the stadium of Bakau... the "national station" call Independence Stadium (Bakau) Atamari 15:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable building. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Google shows no hits whatsoever for Brikami+Gambia, the picture was of somewhere else, and an English colonised/speaking country is not likely to have a stadium called "Stade" anything. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh. Brikama + Gambia has lots of hits. No !vote. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      note Brikama ist the second largest city of this country, it's normaly you can find many google hits. But you will find no reliable source in literature (de:Wikipedia:Bibliothek/Portal Gambia) or web that exist a nationalstadium in Banjul, or otherwise in the country with the name describes "Stade Brikama". Search "Gambia + stadium" you can see only independence stadium in Bakau. --Atamari 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My searching through ghits threw up the fact that there is only one stadium as such in Gambia and that is the "Independence Stadium", the national stadium. I did wonder if the "Stade Brikama" was an early or alternative name for this but nothing I have read supports that. In fact, "Stade Brikama" seems to appears only on wikis and mirrors and the like, and it seems to me that possibly an error has been made in one place and this has multiplied across the 'net like rabbits! I will go with Atamari and !vote delete as I find no reliable sources to verify that a stadium with the name "Stade Brikama" exists. I thank Atamari for pointing this out here; I saw while researching that he discussed this on de.wikipedia a couple of months ago. --Malcolmxl5 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename to Box Bar Stadium - currently a redirect to Banjul). A search for Brikama stadium returns lots of hits. This local news story states that it is the "Brikama Mini Stadium better known as Box Bar", while the article synopsis here states that "The GFA first and second divisions leagues are in progress at the Independence Stadium and Brikama mini-stadium respectively". So it's a pretty signficant (though small) stadium, and appears to be the Gambia's second stadium. There is even some information about it at de:Box Bar Stadium. Warofdreams talk 19:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    but the information of 15.000 people ist wrong for this mudfield. --Atamari 21:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a source which suggested 7,000 - but if it's largely unseated, it's probably pretty variable. You've got a point that basically there's almost nothing correct in the existing article, so it wouldn't be a great loss to delete it and start again, but we may as well adapt what we have. Warofdreams talk 18:23, 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 and salt--JForget 01:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sextant properties[edit]

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

Blatent link spam. I speedied this once, but it got recreated. I bring it to AFD to get a more official statement on the unsuitability of the subject. Note that article's author refers to this as my company [12]. BTW, I'm guessing User:Sextantproperties and User:Matcan are sockpuppets. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete then salt as per nom ForeverDEAD 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joey parker[edit]

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

Prod tag removed by author with comment: "Created internal links". Autobiography of a WP:NN "journalist". No WP:RS. Clear WP:COI. PR piece. Evb-wiki 14:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 17:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though not speedy, A7 is for articles that make no assertions of notability. This one at least seems to make those assertions, being a prominent media personality is an assertion of notability. HOWEVER, without proof of notability per WP:N, which requires multiple, extensive references in third-party reliable sources, this seems to miss the boat. If such sources can be furnished, I would easily change my vote.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter if it passes WP:N -- it WOEFULLY fails WP:V. Who's to say that this person even exists? —  MusicMaker5376 20:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not verified and probably nn Computerjoe's talk 15:07, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian tennis[edit]

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

It matters not whether I flagged this five minutes or five hours after it was posted, it is a pure case of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- RHaworth 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Also Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up with your buddies--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. brazilian tennis is indeed notable and verifiable with 24 active players, a slew of fans, a governing body and over 500 recorded games. what is the timeline for deletion? MrGears 18:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • i hereby request an extention before this article is deleted. the IBTA is working on a media hit as we speak. a media hit will justify notability. MrGears 16:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a joke, right? You're pulling our leg on that. You cannot be serious. I have never seen a keep vote make a better pro-deletion arguement in my life. That is great. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced. Unverifiable. However, in the spirit of WP:AGF, not opposed to recreation after "media hit". —  MusicMaker5376 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources -- Whpq 16:06, 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 speedy delete. -- RHaworth 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best wikipedia user to ever be banned[edit]

The best wikipedia user to ever be banned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nonsensical page Jessedavid 14:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - patent nonsense and so tagged. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, looking at the log, this seems to be the user page of an indef blocked user, moved to article space by a sock-puppet. I suggest the sock puppet be blocked as well. Strike that - he seems to have made a few good faith contributions as well. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:22, 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 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Artist Club[edit]

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

notability, advert Toddstreat1 14:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite it appears notable to me but it needs a rewriting. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 17:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still appears to fail the notability guidelines in WP:WEB and WP:N, as I cannot find any reliable sources in a google search. The search turns up 1) Self-published sources (cannot be used to establish notability), 2) press releases (cannot be used to establish notability) and 3) trivial mentions in other sources (single, one-off sentances, which cannot be used to establish notability). I can see no evidence that this service is mentioned in any non-trivial way by any third-party sources, and without actual evidence of notability, it should be deleted. Of course, this could easily be remidied if such sources can be found. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look Its That Kid (film)[edit]

Hoax KeithD 13:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as vandalism (hoax); no hits on google, original author has vandalized many times and has been blocked --NeilN 15:08, 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 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Boey[edit]

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

non-notable figure. Insufficient references. Aricialam 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - There is this Financial Times article in which he is more than a drive-by mention, but isn't the main subject. And there is an article from here that is behind a pay wall that appears to feature him. But in total, that falls just below the notability bar for me. -- Whpq 16:14, 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. Addhoc 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Rheeder[edit]

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

Hoax KeithD 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax created by editor who is inserting a link in the cast of numerous movies. maybe even Salt it. ThuranX 13:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax, could find no mention of "Bryce Rheeder" on google --NeilN 14:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Tx17777 15:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax and also due to the fact the editor who created the article has been indefinitely blocked for nonsensically adding "Bryce Rheeder" to miscellaneous articles. I support salting as well because this article has been created/deleted twice before. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax, for a person who is supposebly appearing in all of these yet-to-be-made movies, I'm surprised that they haven't even one google hit let alone an imdb entry. AngelOfSadness talk 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt per Erik. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 17:07, 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. However, I'm inclined to strongly invite interested parties to list this article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, per GRBerry (talk · contribs · logs) mid-discussion: whilst this article is, presently, a potential Copyright infringement (per WP:COPYVIO), it seems that the strongest argument put forward is in favour of permitting this article to be kept, so long as a re-write which encompasses a removal of the infringing content (again, per WP:COPYVIO).

In summary, the most beneficial outcome of this AfD is closing as "Keep", but with a strong prejudice towards a re-write to conform to Wikipedia:Copyright violations. However, it is stressed that copyright policy violations are not to be permitted, and deletion is an option I would support should the re-write fail. Anthøny 23:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ringworm children affair[edit]

The ringworm children affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Ringworm affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) current name for article

Potentially an hoax as per this SalomonCeb 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Israel Talk discussion -- Derwig 14:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, the article as it stands is advancing a distorted blown-out-of-proportion conspiracy theory which is only very remotely based on actual tragic events. I suggest recreating a different article about the documentary "The Ringworm Children" that includes reliable sources and film reviews instead. --MPerel 06:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (see new assessment below)[reply]

    • Hi Miri: Please re-read the new NPOV version of this article with it's reputable sources. Thanks, IZAK 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Ringworm affair. The article still needs a major rehaul, but I can agree to 'keep' since there is a *real* (not "alleged" as the article now incorrectly portrays) "ringworm affair" that is notable as the subject of an article. IZAK's rewrite is a good effort and a start, but it is not NPOV as it still is presented from the conspiratorial perspective of one particular documentary and there are other problems including unsourced statements and factual errors currently in the article (which can be corrected). What is notable about the ringworm affair is the fifty years of epidemiological studies, none of which are currently mentioned in the article (the only "study" mentioned is an unpublished paper presented at a conference from a legal perspective). There was a worldwide outbreak of ringworm, and xray treatment was the accepted treatment at the time before the dangers were known. Ringworm was a particular health issue in Israel due to the large number of immigrants at the time, so of course Israel bore the brunt of the tragic after effects where the treatments were especially numerous. The article should present what happened and why, discuss the epidemiological studies that emerged from this, mention the documentary (and there's only one, not many), the sociological effects (i.e. perceived Ashkenazi prejudice against Mizrahi), and the compensation law. --MPerel 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The article is now re-written according to Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you, IZAK 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article clearly violates WP:NPOV, in particular in the documentaries section where undue weight is given to a single documentary (which, for some reason, is portrayed as two different documentaries) and conspiracy theorist, without any weight given to criticism of these (see link provided by User:SalomonCeb above). Also the article is, well, hardly an article, but rather more of a "this event took place, and the following people discuss it:", a borderline violation of WP:NOT#LINK. Rami R 09:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Rami: The article reads like a short well-researched paper with reliable sources, so don't knock it. In the opening paragraph it acknowledges the controversy this affair has generated. It is way past what conspiracy theorists say by now, because respected academics have researched the affair and published about it in respectable academic journals for which citations and sources are given in the article. There are also two importnat documentaries and they are reliable. The article does not rely on bloggers. Thanks, IZAK 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is only one documentary. Barry Chamish reviews not a different documentary, but rather the first documentary (with the names of the directors misspelled, which should indicate the reliability of his review). Rami R 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rami R: OK, so it may be the same documentary in different contexts, but that does not diminish from the subject, which is not Barry Chamish, but the actual events themselves which are corroborated by the other sources cited in the article. There is indeed the "conspiracy theory" angle to this story, as well as all the buzz about it in the blogosphere between pro- and anti-Israel advocates and that is where Chamish possibly comes in, but he is neither the core, nor the source nor the subject of this article's main subject. IZAK 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep wikipedia is not in the business of dissecting the truth from hoax, if it is out there in the media it should be in wikipedia.--יודל 13:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a significant affair, documented in medical literature, and has been reported in other English-speaking nations. Compensation is being paid (though I see some sources indicate there has been exaggeration - could 6,000 really have died shortly after treatment?). Many young Middle Eastern immigrants to Israel were given this treatment for no reason and feel this was done for discriminatory reasons. The only problem is that parts of the article are copyvio. PRtalk 17:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - whilst I can't comment on specifics in Israel, the use of radiation therapy in otherwise potentially severe and difficult to treat scalp ringworm infection (in the days before griseofulvin) was not limited to Israel, but was also standard practice in the UK in the 1930's & 1940's, so the suggestion within the article (by its sole discussion on Israel experience) of it being a sinister experiment seems just a wild conspiracy theory (notwithstanding whether or not there was sterotyping of one group of Jews against another). I still occassionally come across elderly UK patients who were so treated and have had multiple recurrent localised skin tumors since. See PMID 17467352 for a paper published this year about experiences of one hospital in London. A quick search on PubMed shows also recent papers of PMID 17209506 from Tunisia, PMID 16896588 from Germany, PMID 15565500 Italy etc etc. The example in Israel is therefore not unique, and I know of no sinsiter conspiracy theory for radiotherapy's use elsewhere to treat this condition. Therefore if it was routine and "the modern thing to do" in 1940's Britain, the sole dicussion of the use in Israel seems WP:UNDUE focus, for what should be just a sub-section in an article with more global perspective (eg Radiotherapy for scalp ringworm). Use of a journalistic headline title for a discussion solely about a non-English speaking country seems inappropriate here in English wikipedia, where our primary readers are those from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, N.Z., S.Africa, UK, US etc). David Ruben Talk 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above copy vio concerns and that this googles to links such as Jewwatch, Alex Jones and Conspiracy Watch. The move suggestion is good, but I don't see this article containing much salvagable at this time. Kyaa the Catlord 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um Kyaa: Quit the scare tactics! Anything with a Jewish connection gets back onto Jewwatch etc, so that is no reason to delete articles that contain negative information about Israel or Jews. No-one can run away from what are now well-researched events and public information. Just because Jewwatch and nutjobs abuse this kind of stuff is absolutely no reason to suppress it. Thanks, IZAK 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query What is the suspected copyright violation of? It isn't obvious from the discussion here. Is it merely asserted without any evidence, or is there a known original that was copied? GRBerry 03:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was originally little more than a copy of the documentary's official description (compare with amazon.com product page). Hence the original g11 and g12 speedy delete criteria. In the current version of the article, although all the copied text is properly attributed, it fails WP:NFCC 3 (minimal usage), thus still little more than a copyright violation. Also, due to the undue weight given to the documentary (and the lack of weight given to the documentary's criticism), I still maintain that the article is blatant advertising. Rami R 10:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for being clear what it is supposedly a copyright violation of. That clarity is necessary to evaluate whether a copyright violation speedy deletion should occur.
    My judgment as an admin is that I'd decline to speedy delete the original version because there were enough minor changes to show a good faith attempt to avoid the violation, and instead take it to copyright problems (because I think that they weren't enough), allowing the article to be rewritten. That is essentially what is slowly happening during the AFD. The closing admin of this discussion should review this issue themself in addition to evaluating the altered article and this discussion, to the degree it reflects the altered article. GRBerry 13:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Rami R: All the citations in the article are given. That is precisely what Wikipedia requires. One cannot ask for WP:RS and then when they are given and cited scream that it is a "copyright violation" which it is not. Usage of brief quotes from respectable and acknowledged sources is permissible and it's the norm in any term paper, academic article, and a Wikipedia article of this nature.
    GrBerry: It was not just "minor changes" that were made but a major re-write citing at least five independent outside sources from at least two reliable TV documentaries (or one used in a variety of contexts and settings), two published research papers and presentations by two respected Israeli professors, and a summation by another American professor, all reliable and sourced, which makes this acceptable by any standard. The article does not violate any copyrights whatsoever and it is not just a "brief" stub. Thanks, IZAK 06:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. If the original version is a copyright violation, then all derivative versions would also be copyright violations and the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, not just rewritten incrementally via the usual wiki editing process. The massive changes to the article since the very first edit are irrelevant if the first edit was a copyright violation unless one of them was explicitly a total rewrite with a complete page replacement. On the other hand, if the original version isn't a violation, but one is introduced later, we can revert back to a good version so the article won't necessarily be deleted (but we may delete certain edits). GRBerry 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    GR: Honestly, you are making things up. Where on earth did you ever hear that "If the original version is a copyright violation, then all derivative versions would also be copyright violations and the article needs to be rewritten from scratch, not just rewritten incrementally via the usual wiki editing process"? On top of which you admit that there have indeed been "massive changes to the article since the very first edit" and they have obviously been for the better and have followed Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY, so then when you go on to claim that "The massive changes to the article since the very first edit are irrelevant if the first edit was a copyright violation unless one of them was explicitly a total rewrite with a complete page replacement" it is too astonishing for words. Where did you ever hear such things? That is pure WP:NOR on your part now. There are no such rules about re-wrting articles as you are claiming here, and if anything, it is the exact opposite, that if an article can be re-written, improved and redeemed in any way at any time, then it happens quite often that nominators will withdraw their nominations based on the improvements made and better sources cited. And finally, when you end by saying that "On the other hand, if the original version isn't a violation, but one is introduced later, we can revert back to a good version so the article won't necessarily be deleted (but we may delete certain edits)" I have lost you entirely when you make such "differentiations" because your own "theory" here is just a huge violation of WP:NOR about Wikipedia's policies. Thanks, IZAK 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep This is first of all extremely notable, and second no longer a copyvio. DGG (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentActually, the article still was mainly copyvio until I removed the large chunks of text copied and pasted from the sources provided. Article is now a stub. Kyaa the Catlord 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Since this procedure was the standard one, per the medical sources cited, at the time of the "affair" isn't this article much ado about nothing? Would someone please try to assert some notability other than that this is a conspiracy theory meme? Kyaa the Catlord 14:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! There are hundreds of articles in PubMed documenting fifty years of followup of the aftereffects of radiation treatment used to treat ringworm **worldwide**. Someone above suggested that we rename this article Radiotherapy for scalp ringworm, which seems more appropriate. The conspiracy theory as hyped up in the documentary isolating it as some diabolical scheme Ashkenazi Jews perpetrated against Mizrahi Jews in Israel may be worth a mention in a renamed article, but it should be presented in the correct context, that this was the accepted treatment that took place worldwide to treat an epidemic of ringworm before the dangers of radiation were fully understood. --MPerel 17:23, 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. Hut 8.5 09:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morph (Disney character)[edit]

Morph (Disney character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Subject of the article is not notable; the sources that I looked into when I revamped the Treasure Planet article barely mention Morph in their discussions. There is not enough information based on the film to create a separate article for this character; relevant content should just be merged into the Treasure Planet article instead. SilentAria talk 12:29, 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--JForget 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami (Bleach)[edit]

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

Fancruft, no real world context Pilotbob 12:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It describes the plot of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A small rewrite may be in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 16:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If its only purpose is to "describe the plot" then it fails notability guidelines. See WP:NOT#PLOT.--SeizureDog 17:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dposse. Tim Q. Wells 16:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm convinced that real world notability could be shown if effort was put into it.--SeizureDog 16:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major source of information that is necessary to understanding the anime series. True, more out-of-universe information is needed and can be included. Fox816 17:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - central for understanding of the Bleach anime and manga. It certainly does need more out-of-universe information to be included, but that is a cause for cleanup, not deletion. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Best source of Bleach information on web. No other site has the complete breakdown of the captains, courts, swords or anything other information that is interesting. The Shonen jump article listings and omake examples make the info even better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.145.142 (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even aside from its notability with regard to the series, which can be cleaned up with OOU citations, it's a significant variation among the many modern depictions of shinigami. —Quasirandom 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is similar in nature to dozens of other articles I've seen on Wikipedia, and if you wanted to delete it, you'd ultimately end up having to delete all of those others as well... --Dinoguy1000 Talk 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This describes a whole class of characters within the Bleach series. Some suggested real world out-of-universe content can focus on Cosplay. KyuuA4 22:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge and Redirect to Bleach (manga). Non-notable in-universe fanfiction, fails WP:FICT. No verifiable sources to show notability of the subject at all, just claims episodes of the TV series and issues of the manga for sourcing. While the article is far too long for a total merge, it's mostly in-universe cruft, and the relevant bits can be merged into the main Bleach article. -- Kesh 22:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:WAF, a work of fiction is a valid primary source for what happens in it, so verifiability is met. The work itself doesn't estabilish its own notability, of course, but that's a different guideline. —Quasirandom 01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, thank you. I've amended my rationale accordingly. -- Kesh 01:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dposse & SeizureDog (Duane543 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and invoke snowball. Kyaa the Catlord 01:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The majority of the Keep comments here are WP:ILIKEIT, not based on relevant policies or guidelines. WP:SNOW would not be appropriate here. -- Kesh 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Other than the original nominator's "cruft" accusation and your merge proposal which, as below, would inflate the bleach article needlessly, we should remember that wikipedia is NOTpaper and that natural forking like this is allowed, no, it is encouraged. (Or at least had been before the recent spike of deletionist movements.) Kyaa the Catlord 06:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, the nominator's reason for deletion falls under: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. KyuuA4 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. There's no real-world context given at all for this article. It's nothing but in-universe info, which fails WP:N and WP:FICT. Forking is only necessary for notable content that has grown too large for the parent article, and there has been nothing put forward to show that the concept of shinigami in Bleach is notable outside the manga/anime itself. There's very little content in this article that would need to be merged to the parent article, so arguments of bloat are beside the point. At most, we would only need to keep a couple paragraphs worth of information. -- Kesh 19:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er... why is forking "only necessary for notable content"? I'm keenly interested in the subject and don't remember seeing anything to that effect. I was under the impression that proper forks should be considered extensions of their parent articles. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know if it's procedure here, but I'd like to give the example of Shinigami (Death Note) with the same nature. That one is not nominated for deletion, but this one is, in spite of the abundent quantity of information. If it were to be merged in Bleach (manga), there would be either too much increase of info there or too much cutting from important info in this one. Also, as the box on the bottom shows, it belongs to one of the important groups in the manga & anime. Deleting one would mean denying the use of the others, which is a stupid effect. Also, must note that even Vizard has it's own page, which are Shinigami that gained hollow powers, and there is no problem in that article as far as I see it. Those arguments enough to avoid using iLikeIt clause? Then again, maybe it would just be useful to get logical counter-arguments then to criticize other's opinion. Trucizna 02:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is central to the story; without it means no understanding of the backstory of the anime as well as explanation of what shinigami in Bleach do. --Hanaichi 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Just because there isn't out-of-universe information doesn't mean that "there isn't any and it's just another article to delete". You have failed to even give the article a fair chance to do so. And either way, a large number of information is relevant to the series (I'm not saying all of it is) and must be listed, which would be very confusing to readers if they see a jumbled up source of information on the Bleach (manga) page. Still, the article's relevant information can be summed up in three good paragraphs on the Bleach (manga) page if effort is put into it. I'm not going to say keep or merge or delete, however. I'm only putting in my opinion. I am completely against having the article deleted, however, as deletion has gotten out of hand for manga and anime articles (the main reason for nearly every manga and anime deletion, including here, is I (like/don't like) it for both sides on either decision from my various searching through deletion reviews). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been around since October 6, 2005]. That means in two years no one has seen fit to add out-of-universe notability to the article. Saying we "have failed to even give the article a chance" is not correct. If no one can supply anything that shows out-of-universe notability per WP:N and WP:V by the time this AfD is over, I have no hopes that it will ever be shown. -- Kesh 21:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years? Well, since when is there a deadline? KyuuA4 06:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No deadline, but there comes a point where you have to admit the article isn't going to get any better and doesn't conform to policies. -- Kesh 14:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does there? Honestly? Especially since we don't lose anything by having this article here as it is, just don't gain as much as we would from a better one. It might be different with the oft-mentioned biographies of living people. Oh, and in my unreasonably long stay on WP, I've noticed that two years isn't necessarily all that long for cleanup and referencing. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per dposse. Too large an article to merge and cleanup is more appropriate than deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, "cleanup" would involve removing 90% of the material as unencyclopedic, which would also solve the "too big to merge" issue. -- Kesh 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's where the opinion would differ. I would agree that some of it is encyclopedic (cap uniform differences), but not enough for a worthwhile merger, much less into the main article in the series. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in any real-world content or actual notability. Understanding Bleach's plot doesn't hinge on knowing what Kidō is or excessive descriptions of ranks. Seriously, a section on uniforms? ' 02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh, good grief. Like it or hate it, Bleach is the new DBZ and shinigami as important as, say, saiyans. --Gwern (contribs) 11:23 22 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Weak keep some of the content is sourced, perhaps it needs a {{In-universe/Anime and manga}} tag? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per, Gwern. This article has more references than saiyan, so why shouldn't it stay. Trainra 09:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A vital component of the coverage of a prominent subject, and works much better in that role on its own, trimmed or not. Also, I take issue with "unencyclopedic" - that's an enormously nebulous concept with no clear definition, leaving little else than personal opinions, and when used as an argument resolves to the redundant "this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." Not to mention that we are a specialized encyclopedia. --Kizor 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable variation of shinigami and important for understanding both shinigami, and Bleach. Well-written and comprehensive, the only thing lacking are OOU citations. Considering that this is a former good article, and it's been stated that OOU citations would probably turn it into a good article because all the other criteria are filled, it's ridiculous to even suggest this article for deletion. Also Gwern makes an important point about other well-known fictional races having articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In my opinion, this article does not read like fancruft. It is well presented and has sufficient context for an encyclopedia article. --Squilibob 22:07, 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 Keep - nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations in fiction[edit]

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

Unclear Purpose. The page would potentially contain thousands of entries. I asked for clarifications and clear criteria on the talk page 20 July, but have received none. Note that I am against blind deletions, as can be seen on my personal page. However, I think Assassinations in fiction is too pointless - unless someone can explain the page's purpose. Retracting AfD. Mlewan 11:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assassinate this article pointless page ForeverDEAD 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. Mind-numbing list that doesn't even tell you how it happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.182.135 (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "To assassinate" is "to murder (a prominent person)." If the person in a particular work is not prominent, then delete that work — but not the whole article. Assassination has been a recurring theme throughout history; its highlighting in the history of fiction is worthwhile. Nihil novi 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted a number of items that dealt with murder and mayhem but not assassination, thus clarifying the subject of the article. Editors familiar with the remaining items may wish to delete those they feel to be inappropriate. Nihil novi 01:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why assassination fiction should be less worthy of its own article than historical fiction, political fiction or Spiritualism fiction. Nihil novi 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spiritualism fiction is also a good deletion candidate I think. However historical fiction and political fiction attempt to describe how historic and political themes are handled in literature, and they do not try to be humongous lists, so they are valid. Both may need a clean up, however. Mlewan 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a criterion to consider is not so much popularity as quality. And I would rather see the "Animation" and "Video games" sections dropped. Nihil novi 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial listcruft. RobJ1981 04:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I nominated the page for deletion, but it has improved a lot since with a proper introduction. It still needs further improvement, but I do not think it is a deletion candidate. Notably the list needs to be trimmed, and the criteria for inclusion clearer. Mlewan 08:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. That's a common side effect of AfDs - though one that must remain an unplanned fortuitous effect, as otherwise it'd lend itself to extremely undesirable "fix NOW or delete" extortion, and AfDs scaring away potential fixers is also common. But I digress. It'd be a good idea to make your change of heart clearer by adding strikethrough to your original nomination, like this, indicating retraction. --Kizor 13:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to efforts by myself and others to improve the article by adding reliable sources, images, and better opening statement indicating notability and also because the nominator has changed his mind as well, which by the way I find is comendable in the sense that Mlewan has proven to be open-minded and fair. :) Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bunk page, also a bit crufty. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see the nominator has withdrawn the afd nomination--I think very wisely. DGG (talk) 23:12, 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 Keep B1atv 14:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (non admin closure)[reply]

Saskatchewan Highway 703‎[edit]

Saskatchewan Highway 703‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

What would make a road notable? That there's something encyclopedic to write about it, covered in reliable sources, of course. If however dozens of stubs are created for these and they never expand (except for a navigation template that takes more space than the article), it seems more appropriate to consolidate them into a list.

That's all the more the case if one takes as granted that "700s highways are minor highways (...) Many of these highways are gravel for some of their length." This doesn't sound like great potential for expansion.

I found these articles on the notability backlog, then proposed to consolidate them; after receiving no response, I merged them into List of Saskatchewan provincial highways. The redirects were reverted with comment: "take it to AfD if you disagree". I do disagree. So here they are.

I admit that the selection for deletion seems somewhat arbitrary. There are in fact many more articles of the same kind that would need cleaning up.

I also nominate the following related articles:

All three articles have already been merged, so they are redundant by now and can be deleted. --B. Wolterding 11:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep There is an incredible amount of road stubs on Wikipedia. Why start with the Saskatchewan roads? It would be unwieldy to merge all of them with the list. You might find this interesting, by the way. Tim Q. Wells 15:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you going to merge Saskatchewan Highway 316 with the list? If you did (assuming you would trim it) we would lose a lot of the information in the article. If not, then Wikipedia would seem to have an indiscriminate collection of articles on Saskatchewan roads. Tim Q. Wells 15:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have not nominated Saskatchewan Highway 316. However there are indeed a large number of similar stubs that have never expanded, and that I actually do not expect to expand. Why start with the above? Because they had been tagged with notability concerns half a year ago. That's no reason not to clean up others, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a good argument. --B. Wolterding 16:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, before voting "Speedy keep", you might want to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Which of these criteria do you see fulfilled? --B. Wolterding 16:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a great argument when thousands and thousands of other stuff exists. Especially when there were previous AfDs that voted to keep them. Who says I have to meet the criteria for WP:Speedy keep? It's a guideline. Tim Q. Wells 17:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are about individual articles. The fact that an AfD on a road in Nevada was closed with "keep" 2 years ago does not mean much for an AfD on a completely different road in Canada, based on today's notability guidelines (yes, guidelines). But let's not discuss formalities: Could you explain what purpose these stubs serve, if they can be covered as 1 or 2 lines in a list? Can you say what sources there are that they should be expanded on? And why do you expect them to be expanded, if most of them have actually been unexpanded ever since? --B. Wolterding 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was about two years ago only strengthens my argument. Back then Wikipedia did not have 1,000,000 articles. So then the Wikipedians' thought on notability was much stricter. If that road in Nevada was created in 2001 then it definitely would be deleted. As Wikipedia gains more articles people's thought on notability becomes more loose. Tim Q. Wells 17:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary: In 2005, the WP:N guideline didn't even exist. But that leads us too far here, I think. --B. Wolterding 17:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about actual guidelines, but Wikipedians' thought on notability. Tim Q. Wells 17:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the notability tags were added by Wikipedians who didn't (I'm quite sure) understand that Wikipedia includes articles on highways and happened to stumble upon these articles. There is basically no difference in notability between Saskatchewan Highway 703 and Saskatchewan Highway 220. If the Wikpedian happened to stumble upon Saskatchewan Highway 220 instead, I'm sure they would mark that for unclear notability. If this AfD nomination succeeds, then Wikipedia has an inconsistent article coverage ultimately based on what a few Wikipedians with no experience in highway articles thought (again, assuming the Wikipedian unsure of notability did not understand Wikipedia includes those highways, which I'm almost certain of). Tim Q. Wells 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this AfD introduces no inconsistencies whatsoever. It's perfectly OK to have a list of entries (highways) and expand only those into articles on which more information is available, and where somebody is actually willing to expand them. That's in fact encouraged. See WP:SUMMARY. --B. Wolterding 17:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does introduce inconsistencies. Nominating Saskatchewan Highway 703 but not Saskatchewan Highway 220 when there is no difference in their notability is inconsistent. How can you say the opposite? Tim Q. Wells 18:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BUNDLE. Bundling to many articles is generally not a good idea. That doesn't meet that other articles don't need cleanup. --B. Wolterding 18:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Numbered state/provincial and federal highways are generally notable. • Gene93k 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where do you read this in WP:OUTCOMES#Transportation and geography? For me it says: "In the US, state and interstate highways (aka: freeways, turnpikes, expressways and motorways) are notable." This is Canada, but a gravel road comes far from a freeway, for all I understand. (By the way, WP:OUTCOMES is not even a guideline, it's just a rough list of frequent results, so some arguments towards notability would be preferred.) --B. Wolterding 18:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any references to this road that aren't on wiki-mirrors. If no-one else on the internet finds this gravel road worthy of a mention (even in passing), I don't see what purpose is served by a 2-line stub, other than completeness. In which case, why not have articles on the next level down... oh... Thomjakobsen 21:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps check Google Maps and the provincial road maps instead of regular Google? Dl2000 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it appears on a map, as nearly all roads do. I was thinking more of people mentioning it somewhere, even in passing, as evidence that it isn't completely obscure. Thomjakobsen 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Part of the Saskatchewan provincial road system. This road is notable enough that it was selected to be maintained by the province rather than a county/regional/local government. The majority of roads don't get that. —Scott5114↗ 01:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would tend to think a gravel Highway is worth noting... how many gravel highways are you able to think of/know of/locate? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly...that's a unique highway. Tim Q. Wells 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ratio of road articles to editors on Wikipedia is 15:1. You're going to get lots of stubs if you only prowl around what's visible (i.e. the article). Not only that, but there's also the underlying fact that these designated highways were selected by the government to have this status, unlike some random county road somewhere. Doing a Google search on just the article title does not yield much, since sources are obscure to the point where you are hunting around in newspaper archives and the department of transportation documents. That said, please keep these articles. O2 (息 • 吹) 03:37, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep, at least Highways 703 and 707, especially now that some sources are added for these. However, couldn't find a citation to support 704's existence, and it may have to go unless someone can find a source for it. Perhaps 704 is a defunct provincial road? Dl2000 03:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES, consensus is clear that state/provincial roads are notable. Alansohn 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 703 and 707 - Seeing how this is turned into quite the debate. Now 703 and 707 have info and sources. 704 i'm not so sure, like Florida State Road 5023, it may be deleted. That however should be a seperate, inter-project discussion. Let's keep 703 & 707 and decide on 704 later. Mitch32contribs 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, an important note: the 600- and 700-series highways are "primary grid roads": [14]. These are maintained by the rural municipalities: [15]; also the legend of the Saskatchewan highway map labels them as "municipal roads". (I can look for more sources if you want more.) Thus these are more akin to county roads numbered in a statewide pattern (to use a U.S. analogy). If this is all that can be written about them, I would say merge into an article like List of Michigan County-Designated Highways. --NE2 17:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numbered highways form part of the backbone of a country's transportation infrastructure. Agree with O2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the numbering makes them notable. Every public road has a government-assigned name or number of some sort. (How else should the government refer to it?) The question is rather: Is there something to write about (or has something be written about) these roads beyond their number? --B. Wolterding 09:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one ever said the numbering makes them notable. Tim Q. Wells 22:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Indent reset) - User:Exit2DOS2000 and I expanded Saskatchewan Highway 994, a road even-less notable than the three up for deletion. I really suggest most Saskatchewan articles start following the basics of 994.Mitch32contribs 01:30, 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 userfied and deleted by MacGyverMagic (content was: '#REDIRECT User:Savagebeast118/Bruce Burritt' (and the only contributor was 'MacGyverMagic')). Non-admin closure. shoy 17:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Burritt[edit]

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

Bruce Burritt does not meet requirements for a biographical entry. Some factual information is present, but there is too much nonsense to sort through. --Cici Pederson 7:21, 20 October 2007

DELETE - not notable, agreed on the nonsensePilotbob 12:45, 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. Eluchil404 05:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major dePingre'[edit]

Major dePingre' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A non notable who falls short of the requirements of WP:BIO. The article is mainly referenced from sources that are not independent. The claims of notability are that he was editor of a few local papers and wrote a history of the local church. Nuttah68 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of any significant achievements. None of the small papers he wrote for appear notable. Wikipedia is not for obituaries. shoeofdeath 06:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'was a former journalist and businessman in Minden, a small city of some 13,000' kind of makes him NN! Computerjoe's talk 15:10, 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 No consensus to delete. Though the lack of third party sources is a legitimate concern. They clearly meet the core policy of WP:V and there is no consensus to delete below. Eluchil404 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aarakocra[edit]

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

Fictional characters from Dungeons & Dragons. Extensive ghits on fansites, but no third party reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The primary sources serve as extremely reliable sources. As for notability, the sheer number of fan sites establish that. ➳ Quin 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:FICTION, it's the real-world content in independent sources that makes fictional characters or concepts notable. I don't see much (if any) real-world content here. --B. Wolterding 12:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge somewhere. These creatures appear in enough fantasy settings (games, books, role-playing source books, magazines, etc.) that we ought to have some information on them, but I wouldn't object to making this page a redirect to some larger list if an appropriate target is available. JavaTenor 17:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, not particularly notable even within the context of the game. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article is referenced and sourced. Web Warlock 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but where's the real-world content in the sources and the article? --B. Wolterding 09:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT - there's no independent sources covering this. In the alternative, a merge to a list would be okay. -- Whpq 16:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JavaTenor. Plus, creature is well-established, having 25+ years of history in the game.--Robbstrd 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 25 years is a long time to go any secondary sources. Not even mentioned here[16].--Gavin Collins 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while most of the D&D monster articles aren't worth anything, this is one of the more notable D&D races. --Pak21 11:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Namely why? --B. Wolterding 11:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amount of material published about them. Yes, there isn't a sign of a reliable source in the article, but AfD isn't the article improvement drive. --Pak21 11:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge. I do feel that Wikipedia isn't the best place for Monster Manual articles. On the other hand, I think this is worth keeping until we have a good article to merge it into. I imagine that one day we'll have a "Notable creatures of Dungeons & Dragons" or the like. -Harmil 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the issue of references, I'll point out that the article is extensively referenced. It could use inline citations that link this references to specific points, but that's never been a requirement for the existence of an article. -Harmil 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced and solidly notable in the niche of D & D. - Ukulele 21:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the keepers. ;) BOZ 23:47, 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 wasNo consensus noticeable leaning towards keep. Other stuff exists or doesnt is sufficient reason to delete an article. Gnangarra 06:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. H. M. Moniruzzaman[edit]

A. H. M. Moniruzzaman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable diplomat's vanity biography, written possibly by the subject himself. No claim of notability other than job ... similar jobs are held by hundreds of other equally non-notable diplomats. See my vote for detailed deletion rationale. Ragib 10:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Let me debunk the notability --
    • First claim: the person was a permanent secretary ... well, hundreds of other diplomats/bureaucrats have similar, non-notable posts in Bangladesh Civil Service (hundreds more are inducted into the service each year).
    • Nothing significant in his academic and teaching career (Dhaka University has at least 1000+ teachers).
    • Nothing significant either in his diplomatic career.
    • Also note that the article was written by an IP from Belgium ([17]), where the subject of this vanity page is said to be posted now. It seems that either the subject, or anyone associated with him wrote this vanity piece. --Ragib 10:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 11:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 11:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rewrite . He is indeed, as claimed, "head of Bangladesh Mission in Brussels".as documented by "S.Exc.M. Abu Humayun

MONIRUZZAMAN Ambassadeur extraordinaire plénipotentiaire" in [18] which is the official list., as maintained by the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs. Ambassadors of one country to another are notable, regardless of how bad and COI-ridden the article. Perhaps Ragib did not notice this when he said there was nothing notable in his diplomatic career, which is understandable since the link in the External References did not work as given. I've fixed it. DGG (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't get this, how are ambassador's notable to be encylopedic? Do we have articles on possibly thousands of ambassadors of each country to other countries? An ambassador is just another bureaucrat, and not inherently notable. Do we even have other articles on ambassadors of other countries to Belgium? I don't think we'd have hundreds of similar articles. So, I don't buy your claim of notability of ambassadors, otherwise we'll have to list the millions of other government officials of the 100+ countries of the world. --Ragib 00:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument also fails to show how/why ambassadors (bureaucrats on non-permanent assignments) satisfy WP:BIO. To remind you of the criteria, a bio article's subject should be notable so that:
      • The person must have been the subject of published[ secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
      • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
      • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability
      • The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography.
      • The person has received significant recognized awards or honors.
      • The person has demonstrable wide name recognition
      • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
    • Even in Bangladeshi media, this bureaucrat is not notable. Bangladesh appoints bureaucrats to serve as ambassadors to close to 100 countries in the world. Unless you demonstrate anything special about this person, simply being an ambassador is NOT any proof of the person's notability. Please note that I am not saying Ambassadors/diplomats in general are not notable ... but if you look into the Category:Ambassadors, you'd see most of them are notable NOT for being an appointed ambassador, but for being independently notable for their deeds or actions. Also note that the category ONLY has 44 entries, NOT the tens of thousands of people serving as ambassador of a country to another. That ought to debunk your argument about notability of ambassadors. Like other Government services, being an ambassador isn't much of a feat, unless the person performs some notable acts, substantiated by independent sources. Thanks. --Ragib 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that Wikipedia is still very incomplete. I think it ranks right up there with member of a national legislature or cabinet minister. I'd think that Bangladesh has 100 or some people who count as eminent diplomats. I wouldn't extend this to lower ranking positions in a contries foreign service, probably not even to chargé d'affaires, and certainly not consuls. But this is the top rank. DGG (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That Wikipedia is incomplete isn't really a justification for including non-notable Government officers. If you consider official protocol, hundreds of other Government officials have the same or higher rank as these diplomats ... that doesn't mean we need to create articles on each of them unless they are notable. You still haven't justified the criteria I quoted above, simply being a officer is not notable per WP:BIO. Also, we don't see articles on each of the 10s or 100s of diplomats of each country to other countries ... simply because they, by virtue of their job titles, are not notable. Thanks. --Ragib 05:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment'as people write them, we will have them. I am glad that someone has at least started here. He is clearly a major Bangladeshi diplomat, and I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence of the opposition. DGG (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that he's a major diplomat. You are assuming that this post is more significant than thousands of other similarly ranked bureaucratic posts of Bangladesh Govt. Wikipedia is not a place for "Who's Who of Bangladeshi Government Officials" :). As I have mentioned several times above, you have not showed any notability proofs for this person ... (other than his post ... which is not really very significant, and definitely not encyclopedic by itself). --Ragib 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Based on WP:BIO, to be notable the person MUST HAVE BEEN the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. No such evidence is available for this subject. The position held by this person (ambassador) is not a political position, rather a bureaucratic post. Hence the special notability criteria for politicians also do not apply for this subject. Arman (Talk) 09:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment N(People) is a guideline, not policy, and intended to be interpreted flexibly, as are all guidelines. Quite a number of positions are accepted as notable, such as all state and provincial legislators, on the general argument that there will be sources if one looks hard enough in printed sources--and this extends backwards historically. Similarly, any ambassador in the course of the career can be expected to have had such sources--and the standard for WP is Verifiable. We do not delete articles for lacking sources. You keep saying just an officer, just a civil servant--there are obviously many ranks of each, and in the foreign service of any country this is the top rank. As a general overall guideline, the top rank of any profession is notable. Hate to mention it, but the article is being attacked with unusual intensity. DGG (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N guideline is there to ensure exactly this: vanity articles about non-notable people. As mentioned above, buereaucrats serving in the Bangladesh Foreign Service are not notable just because of their post, as numerous officials with higher precedence exist. Also, please refrain from making personal attacks or insinuating comments on my proposal for deletion: as a native Bangladeshi, I have a good idea of who is notable and who is not, and here I am proposing deletion of a vanity autobiography of a non-notable Govt. officer. Please stop inventing claims about notability of ambassadors ... people are not notable just for being so ... Also, an ambassador is NOT the top ranked post in Bangladesh Foreign Service or Bangladesh Govt (per the rules/protocol). Thank you. --Ragib 18:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All professionals are significant, all people are important, all life is valuable. It would be great if Wikipedia could accommodate all 7 billion people living and all those countless billions who have passed away. That would make it a complete repository of biographical information, almost. But, until and unless that happens why even try to get small-time ambassadors included here? If there are 150 countries in the world, each trying to post 1 ambassador to each other, and with ambassadors retiring and new ones joining, how would you accommodate those millions of ambassadors here? Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
since not all smaller countries post ambassadors to all others (& this guy seems in fact to be the ambassador to several), the number is more likely about 10,000 - 15,000 at a time. They tend to stay in office a few years, as has this one. so that's 5,000 new articles a year. We have over 2 million articles now. We can handle that many more, if people do the work. WP is NOT PAPER. and as I said, only the top rank of professions are generally intrinsically notable. ambassador is the top rank. DGG (talk) 05:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A template is needed for additional citations, but deletion is not warranted here.--Libertyguy 01:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comp.internet.services.wiki[edit]

Comp.internet.services.wiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

"The group was created on 12 Oct 2007". That's about it, except for the 29 unique ghits which prove the unverifiable nature of this "article". MER-C 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per WP:NOTE. Tiddly-Tom 10:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article, which is a very important policy of this project. Moreover, this subject is not covered significantly as well from reliable sources. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We could source it to the newgroup control message or whatnot, but I don't really see that an individual Usenet newsgroup is automatically notable, especially when it's part of a "bulk creation". --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN Computerjoe's talk 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 speedy deleted under CSD#A7 by @pple (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ljå[edit]

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

Article fails to establish band's notability Lugnuts 10:08, 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. Eluchil404 05:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extramarks.com[edit]

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

Vanispamcruftisement - it turns out that the creator of the article has a similar name to one of the website's BOD. Non-notable website - Alexa rank is 822022. The only substantial reliable third party coverage in the 77 unique ghits is this article. MER-C 10:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. As several said in this discussion an edit war doesn't justify an article of being deleted. However, to the keep voters please provide some references to help satisfy WP:V and WP:N because as of now there is no sources provided which gives me the impression that it is borderline notable. I'm giving this article a chance to be improved.--JForget 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Hoffman[edit]

should be deleted. For too long an edit war has taken place over the entry and/or removal of a supposedly controversial section. Having read the opinions of wikipedia editors I have lost faith in their ability to judge sources and feel that the only solution is to remove this person from the wiki. After all, he is really a very minor character in the world of music, neither composing nor performing. Kalowski 09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kalowski, I agree on your comments. The particular editor protecting Steve Hoffman's page, iMHO, leaves much to be desired. He has been presented tangible evidence of his mistakes in protecting the page, proof about every allegation made, and he avoids discussion entirely. He, in fact, has made me lose confidence in Wikipedia and its modus operandi. I vote for deletion. EricGoberman 14:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the page doesn't note it has been nominated for deletion ? Thunderwing 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's protected, so an admin needs to add the template. Hut 8.5 13:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I've had enough of this edit war & the irrational decisions made by affiliates of Steve Hoffman. (this vote was mine, forgot to log in) Sidar 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- behavior of editors is no reason to delete an article. Hoffman appears to be very notable in the audiophile world, called a "veteran recording engineer" in a recent LA Times article. (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references) --Ronz 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are still five proposed references on the article talk page that appear to show notability of the subject that no one has contended. --Ronz 16:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. JJL 16:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ronz's statement Red Fiona 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete and I cannot accept Ronz's reasoning. The LA Times is no more authoritative than the Houston Press. If the LA Times articles is acceptable then return the Contraversy section and I will no longer call for the section to be deleted. Kalowski 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I see no valid reason offered for deletion. Edit warring is a separate behavioral issue. Deletions are a content matter. We don't delete articles simply because people can't get alongWikidemo 17:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Note both Kalowski and EricGoberman are new editors. --Ronz 16:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)" This is true... however this is also irrelevant. Kalowski 18:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:AFD, Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. This is a standard note to put in a discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of controversy is invalid as a rationale for deletion. AFD is not for content disputes. Please use dispute resolution processes in the future. --Dhartung | Talk 19:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The main problem with the article is the underlying edit war. The only ones who are even discussing are those who want the Controversy section in - the ones who are removing it aren't even showing up on the talk page, and it has been suggested (more than once) that they are conflicted! Someone needs to, after this article is finished, hand out {{uw-coi}} to every editor who has been shown to have one, unprot the article, and aggressively revert and warn those who keep making COI edits. RfCs, Mediation, etc. won't work because these editors don't parley. This nonsense should end. Wikipedia is not a public-relations tool. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Does not meet criteria for deletion set at WP:DELETE. An edit war over sourced content is not a grounds for deletion. dissolvetalk 21:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny how all the people willing to "keep" the article aren't willing to discuss why the "Controversy" section should be deleted - they just want it deleted. After properly documenting this section, Ronz insists it should be deleted because it doesn't "meet his criteria" (a Houston Press article), and then justifies keeping the article because he found an LA Times article. This is ridiculous - either leave in all documented sections, or delete the whole article, since it's basically useless in its current state. EricGoberman 04:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Funny how..." As has already been pointed out multiple times, this is a forum for discussions of article deletion, not content disputes. --Ronz 20:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the Houston Press article shows notability, so your vote should be Keep, right? --Ronz 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His notability is based on both his remastering work and the disappearance of master tapes under his responsability. As long as both sides of his career are shown, my vote would be Keep. Unfortunately, SH representatives (with a conflict of interest, as demonstrated in the talk page for Steve Hoffman) are repeatedly vandalizing the entry, deleting anything they deem to be not in the best interest of their boss. Due to this fact, I vote "delete" - there's no way to mantain a non-biased article on him. EricGoberman 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete- for lack of notability and above reasons.JJJ999 05:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know absolutely nothing about the controversy, and have not bothered to learn anything, but the keep or delete discussion on the notability of the person involved should involve that, only. And there is nothing in the article to indicate that this person is notable. Being an audio engineer is not de facto a notability, and other than that, what makes him notable? The article doesn't say. Therefore, he fails notability criteria. Corvus cornix 21:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page lists multiple sources that appear to indicate notability. (See Talk:Steve_Hoffman#Possible_references) --Ronz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[19] - one sentence with no claim of notability
[20] - requires registration, so I can't read it.
[21] - requires registration to read, I'm not sure this is a reliable site, anyway.
[22] - requires payment to read article. Corvus cornix 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at the references. Note that on the second page of the first article, Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. --Ronz 22:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean, Ronz, that Hoffman is quoted multiple times as an expert. I notice:

  • ...veteran recording engineers such as Steve Hoffman, Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood...
  • Hoffman then proffers an opinion on capturing recorded sound.
  • And Hoffman, who commands high fees for his commercial work...
  • And then a final quote from Hoffman
    • The other veteran recording engineers Gustavo Hidalgo and Elliot Midwood do not have pages on Wikipedia. I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability. Delete

Kalowski 11:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that we have a source that shows notability. Your nomination of the article for deletion then should be withdrawn by your own admission that the subject is notable. --Ronz 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ronz Well, Ronz, I am admitting that I wrote the following:

I submit that the only thing that makes Hoffman different and thus more interesting than any other veteran recording engineer is the controversy surrounding his dismissal. Without that section there is no notability.

so if the controversy section is reinstated the subject will be notable and I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. Does that make sense? Kalowski 17:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteQuoting someone as an expert does not justify a Wikipedia entry. If it did, I would add a friend of mine who is quoted as an expert in the biology field in many journals and newspapers. There are many sound engineers, mastering engineers, studio professionals, etc. that do not have Wiki entries. Mr. Hoffman has a popular Internet forum with many members. This alone does not justify an entry either. The members of his forum are the ones that are continually deleting relevant facts from this entry (COI) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huberman (talk • contribs) 13:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, being identified as an expert by enough reliable sources does indeed make the subject notable. See WP:BIO --Ronz 15:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not notable. Rklawton 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding notability, keep in mind the article is in the middle of an edit war and is fully protected so any non-admin can't edit it. Claims to notability that are available in the articles history have been removed from it's current state. For WP:N, there are multiple independent reliable sources about the subject:[23][24][25], also not on the web are features in the L.A. Times, Audiophile magazine, and Tape Op magazine. To peruse (many) notable recordings he's worked on: [26] dissolvetalk 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd counter-argue that Steve Hoffman or his representatives have been politely asked to discuss the issue on SH's Talk page. So far, they haven't engaged in conversation with the editors who believe the "Controversy" section should be kept. They haven't supported SH's notability by posting source material, either - so far, the notability arguments have been supported by the same people who believe the "Controversy" section should not be deleted. 200.38.162.11 22:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bob Ludwig is the only other notable remaster engineer on Wikipedia. His work is much more expansive than that of Mr. Hoffman, who really is not notable outside of a small circle of so-called audiophiles. He is just a minor player in the world of CD reissues, not deserving of an article. Sidar 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the sources found by Ronz in Talk:Steve Hoffman#Possible references are enough to show notability. I still don't know whether the charges about mishandling of master tapes belong in the article (the 'Controversy' section) since the only thing backing that up is the single 1996 article in the Houston Press, a free alternative weekly paper. That issue is being discussed at WP:BLPN, and others are welcome to chime in there. As for AfD, I think our usual criteria for keeping the article are satisfed. I agree there are some notable audio engineers like Bob Ludwig who have won awards, and I don't see any reports that Steve H. has. However Ludwig has been (correctly) given a much longer article. EdJohnston 12:36, 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. Moreschi Talk 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Papachristopoulos[edit]

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

Seems to be non-notable person. I can't find the books listed using google (or anything on google or google scholar with these names). I can't find a notabe person with this name. Anarchia 09:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find them because these are essays and articles in Greek newspapers! Well, my opinion is that the content is MOST important than the person... maybe you should read it, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice also its relation with The State of Siege and Insense and Prometheus and Aeschylus'. Maybe you don't care... but maybe in Greece someone is... and think that you could also reject Camus! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 09:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that these entries are very important. Don't throw them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 09:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i just noticed that Anarchia and Sofia -as well as New Zealand, meaning Nea Zoi, Land of New Life- are Greek! Anarchia means without principles and Sofia means Wisdom... so, as a result, maybe all these seem Greek to you because you are not Greek. Now, is Wikipedia only English??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


One more word - i searched in Wikipedia about what a reliable source is and i found that it depends on scrutiny. I went to the word scrutiny in Wikipedia to find what scrutiny is... well, guess what... even this article does not meet Wikipedia standards!!!!!!! hahahahaha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article is a joke entry without sources of any kind and any way to verify anything in the article. There is not even his name written in Greek or a link to Greek Wikipedia's article on him. Mlewan 12:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete It is a very serious article, original research and easily read, especially in univesities. Greek Wikipedia? What is this? Moreover, the phrase insense is in the text of L'Etat de Siege by Camus himself and it seems Papachristopoulos is the only one who can explain what it means. Eveybody must read this -and it seems that there is really a connection between Cadmus, Camus, Kandinsky, Insense and Synaesthesia. Read Kandinsky book The Spiritual in Art and also Maritain's Integral Humanism. This is a perfect entry for Wikipedia, you should be proud for your contributors, not for your administrators... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.135.8 (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do not seem to get this. In Wikipedia it does not matter if the content of an article is important and true. The only thing that matters is that it is verifiable. If it is important and true but not verifiable, you have to find somewhere else to publish it.
    • Original research is a criterion to delete material. It is not a good think in en encyclopaedia. Mlewan 14:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buddy i suggest list some sources that one of us can actualy read or you really have no valid reason for keep. BTW use "Keep" instead of "not delete" ForeverDEAD 15:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think sources in Greek would be fine. However, so far we do not even have that. Not one single. Mlewan 16:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. JJL 16:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:V - no sources are present. WP is not the place for OR. meshach 17:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I made several changes to this article (and others linked to it) trying to clean it up a bit, while at the same time searching for sources. Couldn't find any, however I just thought it was something to do with it being a Greek topic and I wasn't searching properly. So gave it the benefit of the doubt and figured it just needed someone more familiar with the subject to provide sources. Further searches a little while ago still returned nothing. Certainly seems to fail WP:OR. Not sure how to do it, but might want to include Insensé in this Afd as it is basically the same content as half the Christos Papachristopoulos article. ARendedWinter 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I searched for his Greek name, Χρήστος Παπαχριστόπουλος. At least there is a journalist with that name. He writes for a car magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlewan (talk • contribs) 23:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also nominating the following related page because, as Arendedwinter has pointed out, it was created by the same person/people and contains almost the same material, and, again it seems to violate WP:OR. If the idea is a significant one in the work of Camus, then it could perhaps be saved by being properly referenced. But, a good portion of the article would still need to be deleted. Anarchia 20:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insensé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Insensé theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Question Is it possible to get 77.49.135.8 ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) to stop adding more OR material related to these pages to wikipedia while the matter is under consideration? Anarchia 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dunno. I remember we had quite a game getting him to stop posting his own translations (including a full-length Greek version of a Camus play) on English Wikipedia. --Folantin 20:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Without sources, full of original research, the person may very well be notable, but doesn't seem to be in English. --Rocksanddirt 04:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not the same with the one who writes in the car magazine... but, you should consider saving his contributions because it the best material you had since years for Camus and synaesthesia... and, then, wikipedia has the copyrights for it, so everyone is happy... or you will be ever able to learn Greek? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.129.58 (talk) 06:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As i said, you scholars people, you would even delete Camus as not a notable person... even the article for the word scrutiny you have judged it as not appropriate for wikipedia. Just see this and ask yourselves... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrysJazz (talk • contribs) 06:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is really a Greek joke - "ανέκδοτον" - anekdoton - unedited - that Anarchia which means "αν-αρχία" meaning without principles/sources wants sources!!! Well, if you are really scholars and not computers, you know what source, principle, origin and root' mean!


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

The result was delete failed verification. Carlosguitar 19:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy hip hop[edit]

Comedy hip hop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems like original research. A Google search reveals a mirror of this article and no sites recognising this as a valid sub-genre of hip hop. Spellcast 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, should probably be renamed to Comedy Rap. --Alessandro 10:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete It's my opinion that a reasonable article could be written about this subject, but this mess of original research isn't it, and it might be better to just start over. No prejudice against recreation of this article with different contents, and improvements to the existing one could convince me to change my !vote. JavaTenor 18:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'd support recreation if it can be sourced. WP:V and WP:OR is non-negotiable and the page is just riddled with unsourced info and OR for me to support keeping it right now. Spellcast 05:57, 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. Eluchil404 05:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helmut Ghose[edit]

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

There are no sources to indicate notability. Article is possibly a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmut ghose. Relisting as disputed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whatever the other issues, not demonstrably notable --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original nom. MER-C 09:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced and none available to average user. I will reconsider if someone can provide references. Nuttah68 16:26, 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. Carlosguitar 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Live AIDS[edit]

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

Delete This is an annual college musical show. Unref and orphan since November 2006. 28 ghits found[27], most from wp mirrors. Originally promotional article by SPA, who hasn't been back. Makes just enough of a claim to not be speedy. Fails WP:N among others. Horrorshowj 07:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Poorly written, no good content, and no references. Non notable group WP:N, and I don't think it's makes a good enough attempt to not Speedy. Carter | Talk to me 08:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - quote from WP:CSD "If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead". Could be seen as controversial, therefore I don't think it should be CSD's but fails WP:N so should be deleted ;) Tiddly-Tom 13:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -CSD G11 Yourname 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references and no notability. Nuttah68 16:21, 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. Carlosguitar 20:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs[edit]

Red Dwarf DVD Easter Eggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This lies somewhere between indiscriminate information and a guide/manual; subject and tone inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Prod removed by anonymous user without comment. Marasmusine 07:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. As it stands this is an essay and almost pure WP:OR. If it can be sourced, some of this could find a home in Zombies in popular culture or a similar article. No article at this title can stay, though, unless relialbe sources using it for a specific zombie archetype can be found. Eluchil404 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romero zombies[edit]

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

Delete this opinion-riddled essay that adds no information not already covered in other articles. Severe lack of sources and insertion of opinions runs into OR and POV problems. Doczilla 06:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - entirely WP:OR. Marasmusine 07:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essay that states the absolutely blimmin' obvious. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Speciate 07:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. True, this is obvious on its own, but I've seen "Romero zombies" as a concept distinct from "Russo zombies". I don't suppose there's an article where we could use the comparisons? --Kizor 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Edit Romero Zombie is a way to sperate voodoo zombies from modern zombies. This page just needs to be edited. RedNeckIQ55 10/25/07 9:09pm PT —Preceding comment was added at 04:10, 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. Eluchil404 05:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Firmin[edit]

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Should have been speedied for not meeting WP:N, or WP:NOT#BIO Carter | Talk to me 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Tiddly-Tom 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definately not speedy, as A7 requires that there be no assertions of notability. This may be a borderline case, but there are some assertions of notability, such as his prominent position in Javelin Software, which was a notable corporation. See [[28]] and [[29]] and [30]. However, as notability CANNOT be inherited, and while his corporation seems to be notable, there DOESN'T seem to be any references availible to establish that sources exist to WP:V verify his notability yet. a google search turns up bubkis, which seems to be a clear indication of this guys lack of notability. Of course, if sources are furnished that clearly establish his notability, I could easily change my decision here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:52, 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. Eluchil404 05:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ShoZu[edit]

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

Not encyclopedic in tone or content; questionable notability; possible COI issues; needs complete re-write --ROGER DAVIES TALK 06:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this seems to be a copy of a sales brochure. Could be rewritten but as of now is not salvageable. meshach 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:55, 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. Eluchil404 05:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirivom Santhippom[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, no notability asserted Girolamo Savonarola 06:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article fails to assert notability either for a film or in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a future film, apparently not even shooting yet ("It is set to be directed by..."), no sources or assertion of notability. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:23, 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 Delete. Eluchil404 05:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Thediya Seethai[edit]

Raman Thediya Seethai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, and no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the article fails to assert notability either for a film or in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a future film, apparently not even shooting yet ("It is set to be directed by..."), no sources or assertion of notability. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striker (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, no notability asserted, and article was recreated less than 24 hours after a speedy deletion on these very grounds. Girolamo Savonarola 06:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom for failing to assert notability either for a film or in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a future film for which the only given source does not establish that the production itself is notable. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:34, 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 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yavarum Nalam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, does not assert notability, more pertinent referencing needed. Girolamo Savonarola 06:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a future film for which the given sources do not establish that the production itself is notable. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article here from October 2007 indicates this film has not yet started production and thus doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. Accounting4Taste 23:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keeep : Shooting has started, article is sourced + notable Universal Hero 17:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the sources need to indicate shooting has already started. Ref 4 says that shooting was to begin on Sept 10 (article dated the 8th), then Ref 5 (from this month) says that actors were changed and the film is to commence in November. This is exactly why we require sources confirming shooting after the fact. Girolamo Savonarola 17:46, 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. Eluchil404 05:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadlywind[edit]

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

Deletion nomination Contested speedy. Article provides no evidence of notability as spelled out in WP:CORP and WP:N guidelines. There are tenuous claims of notability as to providing some unique products, but there is no evidence provided that such products themselves are recognized by reliable sources as notable. Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:17, 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. Eluchil404 05:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yezhu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 06:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete small context, I tried to find independent sources using Yezhu+film, Yezhu+movie, and Yezhu+tamil, but I failed. Carlosguitar 11:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a future film for which the only given source does not establish that the production itself is notable. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any Google evidence that this film has begun production and thus it doesn't meet WP:MOVIE. And the fact that an actor turned it down doesn't lend any notability. Accounting4Taste 22:58, 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 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perumal (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a future film, apparently not even shooting yet ("It is set to be directed by..."), no sources or assertion of notability. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:27, 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 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pagalavan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, no references. Girolamo Savonarola 06:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, a future film that has not yet started shooting, for which the only given source does not establish that the production itself is notable. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current events in Pakistan[edit]

Current events in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Furthermore, this is just a duplicate of Portal:Current events/Pakistan, so redirection would produce an unwanted cross-namespace redirect. MER-C 06:03, 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. Eluchil404 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerrupukozhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, no references, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 05:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- a future film, no sources asserting the production itself is notable. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet the criteria for future films and, in fact, barely manages even to claim any notability, much less demonstrate it. Adrian M. H. 10:48, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Columbian Crocodile[edit]

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

Does this even exist? I tried to improve this article and verify its contents by looking for species info, but didn't find any. 10 ghits. MER-C 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete MER you are not alone, fails WP:ATT sounds like a WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar 10:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per both above Carter | Talk to me 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree it's a hoax. There are Crocodiles in Columbia, but not the Columbia river. Don't think the ones in Columbia are a separate species, so this is needless. Horrorshowj 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per likelihood of hoax. de Bivort 07:43, 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. Eluchil404 05:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nee Oda Naan Thuratha[edit]

Nee Oda Naan Thuratha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, does not assert notability. Girolamo Savonarola 05:49, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nandalala[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, no notability asserted, and no references. Girolamo Savonarola 05:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No IMDB or AMG listing, future film with no proof of existence, let alone notability. SkierRMH 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Film called off per sources. Universal Hero 09:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, and apparently nonexistent per Universal Hero. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 17:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete (A7) Article doesn't claim that this film is notable. A1octopus 16:10, 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. No reliable sources. Article is a complete NPOV failure. PeaceNT 07:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Bird's diary[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Yellow Bird's diary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously proposed for deletion using PROD, but somebody removes it. Believing that the article should still be deleted, I changed it to AfD. The show mentioned by the article (The Oriolus's diary) is of little importance. The article seems to contain some bias and focus more on the sex clip scandal (which is already discussed in Celebrity sex tape) rather than the targeted TV show. If the article is to be kept, it should be re-written, perhaps focusing more on the show with link to detailed information on the mentioned sex clip scandal.Mdanh2002 05:09, 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. PeaceNT 13:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Kirke[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable, there are zero google hits for its name. Seem to be written by someone close to him. Kevin 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: NN Person. I agree, reading that article I sense some COI. - Rjd0060 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Seems like a hoax. 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Myspacecruft... actual link is here SkierRMH 05:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as one of the weakest and most blatant hoaxes I have yet seen. Australian GP driver indeed!! Adrian M. H. 10:26, 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 Speedy Keep - AfD is not a place for content disputes. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putinisms[edit]

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

POV fork from putinism. Content overlap with wikiquote for "Vladimir Putin". DonaldDuck 03:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me explain this. User:DonaldDuck created himself a POV fork: [31] and now asks to delete this article to eliminate POV fork created by him. In more detail, we had two completely different articles with zero content overlap, which described two different uses of the same word (one of them is plural). Please see these versions the articles Putinism and Putinisms. This is a common situation in WP, which is treated using disambig pages. Previously, User:DonaldDuck have done the following: (1) he deleted article Putinisms and replaced it by a redirect [32]; (2) he deleted the entire content of article Putinism to cut and paste the content of another article, Putinisms there [33]. This way, he unilaterally deleted article Putinism. Now he is making this AfD request.Biophys 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This should be closed ASAP. - Rjd0060 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 keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Pak Chiu[edit]

Wu Pak Chiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability doesn't seem to be well-established. Wizardman 03:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Considering when and where, it's probably going to be hard to find sources, but the article does seem to assert notability as a famous singer of his time. Edward321 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability doesn't expire, and this article seems to assert some. - Rjd0060 05:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There is some notability asserted, but sourced only by one memorial site posted by a relative. Also concerns about a single purpose account creating the article & related items and COI (Note the notations at Image:WuPakChiu and Gigli.jpg) SkierRMH 05:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete How could you possibly think this article is worth keeping. It has some huge formatting issues. Carter | Talk to me 11:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which is why there is a cleanup tag. I hope you really don't think we should go around deleting articles that need to be wikified. - Rjd0060 14:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often wish that we could, actually. Adrian M. H. 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I've wikified it.;-) It seemed worth the effort (see my comment below).Voceditenore 09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless WP:V can be met. That's the worst issue with it. There is some notability, but this needs to be proven. Adrian M. H. 10:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sole source at the moment is the site created by his grandson, who I'm pretty sure also created the article. However, the site does have a scan of Wu Pak Chiu's obituary in a Hong Kong newspaper (from which most of the information in the article was taken) as well as several photographs of him with Gigli. It may be difficult to find other online sources, but there may be more to be found in books and newspapers from the period. Perhaps even in a biography of Gigli? (There was also a quote in the original article from the Spanish paper ABC which I left it out when I wikified the article as there was no mention of it on the web site.) I'd suggest leaving this up to see if more can be found. He sounds like an interesting person. Voceditenore 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is the first operatic tenor from China, probably Asia. Although not many sources can be found about him, he was indeed a notable tenor and well-known in Asia. What we need to do is to find more info about him and not simply deleting it just because the info is scarce. - Jay 03:20, 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 no verifiable/sourced information that can be merged. Gnangarra 07:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters from Recess[edit]

List of minor characters from Recess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A tricky list, as it mixes up characters that are somewhat notable to the show with others that are completely trivial. On the whole though, the characters are, as the list says, minor and do not have real world notability. A few character entries might should be merged into the main article though.SeizureDog 03:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge & Delete: Merge the "important" ones anyways. No real-world notability, and no reason for a separate article for these characters. - Rjd0060 05:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All the important character have already been mentioned on the main page, this is just a trivial list that is full of original research and unverified information. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the important information out and Delete -- "minor characters", indeed. Mindraker 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article is a subtopic of a show. This should be a section of the article for that show.--Libertyguy 23:35, 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 --JForget 01:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hairy Pothead and Marijuana Stone[edit]

Hairy Pothead and Marijuana Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Harry Potter parody, no assertion of notability, published this month. I assume the theme wears thin after a while. Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds from the tone like "Cannabis Culture" is a magazine of some sort, which would make this just an article within it. Definitely not notable. Dylan 03:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be a Canadian magazine. It's very hard for any magazine article to assert notability of its own. Acroterion (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the above, fairly straight forward; no assertion of notability and there's a larger article of Potter parodies in any case.Number36 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Jeez. No assertion of notability, at all. - Rjd0060 05:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one G-hit with this title (blog entry), one newspaper article here that mentions book. Nothing to show notability otherwise. SkierRMH 06:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. JPG-GR 05:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 14:30, 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.

Result: The article was redirected to Postgraduate education--JForget 01:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduate-entry[edit]

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

Redirect to Postgraduate education. Snigbrook 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close Of this discussion. I decided to be bold and do the redirect myself. There is no reason to have this AfD. That article had very little context anyways (about 1-2 sentences). - Rjd0060 05:08, 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 14:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard Sathya[edit]

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

Notable? Neutralitytalk 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: The POGO award is no reason to keep, as that is not notable. But there are actually albums listed, so I don't know if this is notable or not. There are about 1,800 G-hits so maybe this person is notable? - Rjd0060 05:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are about 4 albums that appear to be legitimately published (i.e. not self-published), albeit not readily available. Agree that POGO is weak reason for keeping, but there does seem to be some notability (which does need to be bolstered a bit in the article). SkierRMH 06:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The album releases do not satisfy the requirements of point #5 of WP:MUSIC and the award appears to be too minor to satisfy point #8. Adrian M. H. 10:13, 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. Eluchil404 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R. D. Mindlin and Applied Mechanics[edit]

R. D. Mindlin and Applied Mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notable? Neutralitytalk 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I am not picking up on any notability. - Rjd0060 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less than 200 G-hits, mostly in lists. Doesn't appear to be much 3rd party coverage.SkierRMH 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be shown to be in a lot of libraries. Bearian 23:36, 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 Keep (nomination withdrawn by nominator) and Rename Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy B1atv 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (Non admin closure)[reply]

Reid Smear Letter[edit]

Reid Smear Letter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only one dubious source. No external links. Title is POV. Maybe if it was more neutral there may be more justification for this article. Right now it comes across as an attack article. MrMurph101 02:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge, and rewrite. This is a valid story - the CNN coverage of it is here. Not sure if it merits a separate article, and if it does, obviously it has to be renamed. Obviously too the article requires a heavy rewrite for NPOV. Wasted Time R 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning the notability of this but, like you, not sure if it warrants its own article. The way it's presented also seems to have WP:BLP issues even if the mainstream media refer to the letter this way. MrMurph101 03:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. The fact that this hasn't received overwhelming news coverage by the mainstream media (sans Fox and Drudge) does not necessarily mean that its existence is irrelevant. It is, after all, connecting Congress, Rush Limbaugh, the Marines, eBay, and a $2.1 million payment.--WaltCip 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's getting a lot of attention now ... over 900 news articles on Google News. Wasted Time R 04:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how many of those articles refer to it as the "Reid Smear Letter"? None on the first page, from what I can see. If we keep this article, it needs to be renamed to something less POV and inflammatory.-Hal Raglan 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per WaltCip--Bedford 04:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. Needs some work, but is notable. - Rjd0060 05:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...if only for its horrifically POV title. The only way to save this nonsense is to rename the article, scrub it of its contents and try to recreate the article in a NPOV manner. As is, this is one of the most embarassingly bad articles on wikipedia.-Hal Raglan 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Title is very POV and drags this into attack page territory. Could probably be covered under either the Rush Limbaughor Reid's. I don't think the incident has enough long-term notability to be worth an article, but if it does it shouldn't be this one. Horrorshowj 07:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not noticable enough for its own article and the incident in question can be covered under either of the two principals involved. --Martin Wisse 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What justifies "noticeable"? A car bomb? A GOP senator being put on trial? A celebrity marriage?--WaltCip 15:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite: I agree that it needs a new title and work, but the event is notable and likely deserves its own article. --Mike 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely needs a better title, Reid-Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid-Rush Limbaugh letter or Harry Reid letter to Clear Channel or even Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, but it's garnered quite a bit of press, so I'd say keep it. But definitely rename. --Ali'i 16:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the POV title must be changed. I prefer Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy, personally, because those are the principal individuals that coverage has focused on. (It was not a letter to Limbaugh from Reid.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite, and I agree with Dhartung about the letter being renamed Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. I also agree that almost all of the article must be rewritten to be closer to NPOV. I think that the topic is notciable enough to merit an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freiberg (talk • contribs) 02:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clearly WP:POV. WP:NOT#NEWS. --Evb-wiki 15:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note... not being neutral is not a valid delete reason. That can be fixed. --Ali'i 12:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite and Rename: Enough media references to make the letter notable but what's the transcript doing in there? Article should be severely trimmed. --NeilN 16:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is noteworthy even here in Finland. Almost Anonymous 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Based on the above, and per the biographies of living persons/neutral point of view policies, I have (at least) temporarily moved the article to Reid-Limbaugh letter controversy. --Ali'i 13:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep and endorse move - Notable and sourced. Will need to be watched for Media Matters spin, but I think it can be kept neutral. - Crockspot 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, actually, currently we are having to deal more with Limbaughspin, but the point remains. --Ali'i 20:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withrdrawing This is obviously a keep and the original issues are being addressed while this afd has been going on including the changing of the article's title. MrMurph101 01:09, 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 Keep. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanide (Studio)[edit]

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

Delete articles are basically unsourced advertisements for a nn company and its nn products.

I am also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 16:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyanide (Studio) information is about a company that makes products (games). There are no opinions. Just facts. I can't see why it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe ryan (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.42.70 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge/redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator. W.marsh 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Open Sky[edit]

Project Open Sky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable article, unencyclopedic Astroview120mm 02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - they're one of the largest groups of add-on makers for Microsoft Flight Simulator, though I'm not sure whether they actually meet notability guidelines. Mark Grant 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: Into Microsoft Flight Simulator. I guess if you are really into this game, you are going to know about Project Open Sky. - Rjd0060 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that may be the best solution; adding a brief section on add-on makers to the main article. There's also IFDG, which was apparently deleted in an AFD some time back and has presumably been re-created since. Mark Grant 18:41, 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. Consensus is that the stated award is not enough to satisfy inclusion criteria. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Birkmeier[edit]

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

Teenage film director. Some assertion of notability - is it enough? -- RHaworth 17:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so; the awards are fairly nice, but I don't find any indication of the Muskegon Film Festival being a major festival, and he himself turns up a whopping seven Google hits (three when using "C.M. Birkmeier"). Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won awards, it has 3 reliable indy sources, satisfies BLP. What do you want, wicker? Bearian 21:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 02:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability, he one one national scholastic award, and won something in on fil festival of questionable notability.Ridernyc 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He won a national scholastic award...national. Seems notable. It is a stub (and I've tagged it accordingly), but definite keep. - Rjd0060 05:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The award has been around for 85 years and they have given it 2.5 million people, Are all of them notable? [1]Ridernyc 06:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. This person does have other notability mentioned in the article. It may be questionable (as evident from the Notability tag on Muskegon Film Festival, but as of now, it seems notable enough. - Rjd0060 14:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest the film festival should also be up for AFD.19:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable. I couldn't find any mention of him in two of the three sources. Open to changing my mind if the National Scholastic Arts award is very prestigious. Clarityfiend 05:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. The festival apparently caters to HS and college students, exclusively. —  MusicMaker5376 21:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N and WP:BIO. --Sc straker 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of meeting the requirements for creatives given at Wikipedia:Notability (people) and there is no other claim made in the article. Nuttah68 16:13, 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. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Building[edit]

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

Building in Cleveland. Has no assertion of notability whatsoever. Borjon22 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wrong "Standard Building", as it turns out, but I'm still trying to determine when it got that name and why (seeing as how Standard and Cleveland pretty much mean oil & Rockefeller). --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to find significant coverage for this building but couldn't. I don't think this is even on the NRHP. Masaruemoto 05:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a press release about it being nominated for inclusion in an NRHP district. As it's passed the state board it is all but automatic that it will become a contributing structure within the district. I also found out the source of the name, not Standard Oil as it turns out. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are tags to assert a lack of notability. --Emesee 05:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per 11kowrom. Notable building. - Rjd0060 05:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- notable historic building in Cleaveland. Thunderwing 13:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the edits made since the article was nominated should allay any notability concerns. - EurekaLott 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable to local community & notable history, well cite'd Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:10, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grindfest[edit]

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

Not notable. There isn't really anything to be said about this. P4k 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete no need for an AFD. Borjon22 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't fall into any of the A7 categories.P4k 01:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can find reliable sources that cover it. Mushroom (Talk) 01:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm the author but I would prefer the AfD to go through, since there are no grounds for speedy)
  • Delete: No reliable sources to verify notability. - Rjd0060 05:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Held annually since 2007"? A goodly number of the G-hits are myspace related. Does not appear to have any reliable 3rd party coverage (but willing to change mind if some is presented). Probably should come back about 10 years from now after it is established and notable. SkierRMH 06:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Search&searchtext=GRINDFEST&x=72&y=7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.96.200 (talk) 23:40, 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 Delete--JForget 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren stuart[edit]

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

Not notable; Lauren Stuart has been mentioned in a magazine, but I don't think this justifies having a Wikipedia article on her. --Akiyama 01:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete definitely nn. JJL 01:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable-maybe once she is older than 30 something will happen. - Rjd0060 05:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One magazine article from her school does not equal notability. No other apparently relevant Ghits. SkierRMH 06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As has been noted, the article does not meet WP:BIO. --TeaDrinker 06:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- fails WP:BIO Thunderwing 13:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lowercase surname is proof of non-notability Will (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, one mention in a magazine does not make you notable and couldn't find anything on her in a google search. Oysterguitarist 14:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete jackx3 Not only is Ms. Stuart not notable by wikipedia standards but she has also denied playing a role in the action that merited her a spot in Jane Magazine's article on "30 Influential Women Under 30." —Preceding comment was added at 16:07, 20 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 Keep. Hut 8.5 11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 5510[edit]

Nokia 5510 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable cellular phone. This product isn't notable; it's just another incarnation of a common object with no discerning features, no sustaining influence on the market or design, and little longevity. Doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT. Article is unlikely to be repaired because of the lack of substantial sources for this product. Prod expired 2007-10-15 18:39, the article wasn't deleted, and the prod was contested at 19:03, 16 October 2007. Mikeblas 00:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The prod was removed by an admin considering it for deletion because it had expired, so there's nothing unusual about the timing. It does make a claim for notability — "The 5510 is unusual compared to most mobile phones, as it has an almost complete QWERTY keyboard, rather than the conventional telephone keypad" — and that kind of claim needs to be discussed at an AfD, so I agree with the removal of the prod. Here's an article about it at ZDnet, which supports the claim that its design was a unique feature at the time of its release. Another review at The Register, which again notes the unusual design. An Australian review which is unfavourable but again notes the unique design. I found these in the first 70 hits of around 1.5 million, so I'm sure there are more sources to be dug out. I usually say delete to the mobile phone articles, but this one does look like a good example of a notable case. Thomjakobsen 01:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The linked "article" at zdnet is only 400 words, not counting the misplaced glossary of snowboarding terms in the piece. The capsule reviews are 150 words or less. Wikipedia requires substantial references to establish notability. -- Mikeblas 03:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, but that's the shortest of the articles I linked to. The second and third ones are much longer than that, and are "substantial" by any measure. Further down the list of results, you find this Google Books reference ("Product Concept Design"), which is a discussion of the 5510's role in Nokia's design history, together with a diagram, claiming that it was a key product because it paved the way for the N-Gage. And here, a national newspaper article on 2001 being a year of great innovation for phones, and the 5510 is the only model named as a prime example. These are at odds with the claims of "non-notable", "no discerning features", "no influence on the market and design" in the nomination. Thomjakobsen 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --- notability can easily be proven. =Nichalp «Talk»= 03:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Non notable object. The only notable cell phone I can think of is the iPhone. Too bad admin didn't catch it right when the PROD expired. - Rjd0060 05:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: WP:PRODUCT suggests that "the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style." Summary style is a top-down approach. I would really appreciate if someone could expand Nokia#Mobile phones into a good article, before iterating the technical data of every single device they have ever produced. --B. Wolterding 12:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thomjakobsen, clearly notable. Tim Q. Wells 15:36, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arklow vs. MacLean[edit]

Arklow vs. MacLean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't know if this is notable, and I couldn't find anything in WP:OUTCOMES covering court cases, but if it isn't notable, it should be deleted. J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure whether this is notable in New Zealand law either. I suspect it isn't particularly notable, despite having gone all the way to the Privy Council, and I looked for references to it without finding anything other than legal documents. The case being so old may account for lack of coverage in online newspapers though. However, the clincher for me is that the article was written by someone directly involved in the case.-gadfium 01:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noted another attempt to attack Arklow. I draw your attention to the following.

Wikipedia chat- Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.

Note the Arklow litigation involves $3.43b. To date the defendants have tried everything. If I have to take legal action against someone I will do that for either reason; The person is ignorant and has no right to interfere, or may be working for some other interest group and so litigation against them will expose either.

The information on Arklow is correct. It is not bias, in fact it does not even cover the fraud of evidence, the murder of one of my witnesses New Zealand Herald Story - Island mourns young leader of vision Saturday July 10, 1999 By Rosaleen MacBrayne. Arklow is a complex legal issue and is open to review by any of the 40 strong legal team for the 17 defendants. It has already been looked at by Professor Rick Bigwood of Auckland University. If there were any problems they would appear on the talk page. Any unwarranted attack I promise will lead to an immediate writ being served to uncover the thinking and motive behind the attack. --WingateChristopher 01:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening Wikipedia or its contributors with legal action? That's not a good idea.... Marjaliisa 00:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well, That bit that was quoted was found (I won't even think about how he found it) as part of my admin coaching, and shouldn't be understood as policy. I wasn't making an attempt to attack anyone, I was trying to complete my assignment, which was written before this article came to my attention. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with gadfium, little public information on notibility and it looks like there may be practical problems bringing it up to scratch (espcially in the NPOV) area. - SimonLyall 04:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The case actually seems to be very modestly notable in Commonwealth law (in the legal world), splitting hairs over when and whether a party becomes a fiduciary; it's an example of a kind of thing that legal practitioners need to know. However, I don't see much to suggest that it is substantially notable generally, it's somewhere around the borderline, IMHO. The bigger problem is that the current article is wildly inappropriate for the importance of the material, the main editor has just been indef blocked, and he appears to have been an actual party to the litigation, carrying his view of things to a wider world. Unless someone neutral with knowledge/interest in this area steps up, I don't see how we get to a reasonable legal article. Delete it now, but a new article on the topic should be considered on its own merits. Studerby 09:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, work by a blocked author. WP is not a battle ground, historical record, or soapbox meshach 17:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/rewrite, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of knowledge - not of law. If it is a notable legal case (IANAL, but the eveidence of it seems scarce), then it needs to be rewritten with a NPOV. Malathos 04:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nnon-notable case, possible copyright violation, and soapbox. Bearian 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are far better cases to quote regarding what makes up a fiduciary duty, both in New Zealand and in the common law at large. As it stands, the article states the facts (as perceived by a party), and barely touches on the law. It really isn't a notable case, and it doesn't provide the kind of explanation of how it affects the law as it stands.

By the by, I think that Wikipedia should be an Encyclopedia or law, amongst everything else. Unfortunately, even the most important cases (espcially New Zealand ones) don't seem to be covered, and random fact scenarios like this don't really help.--Matthew Proctor 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This doesn't appear to be a notable case. And please wikify your links. Mindraker 12:51, 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. PeaceNT 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of psychological thriller films[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT#IINFO, this article is adequately covered by Category:Psychological thriller films UnfriendlyFire 00:40, 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 no consensus. Two things are certain - this article is primarily OR, yet there are well-put arguments in its defense. Given the current discussion I cannot delete this article at this time, but if no one can (or will) demonstrate that a sourceable article exists behind this OR, a subsequent AFD might not bode well for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi effect[edit]

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

Delete OR item about unsourced "Bambi effect". Most web pages I find that uses the phrase is talking about other things (including something sexual). This is insufficiently notable. And regardless of all that, we still have WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • week delete Seems like a newish term and if there were sources it might be a good article. Right now doesnt meet criteria ForeverDEAD 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non notable neologism without any reliable sources to verify otherwise. NeoFreak 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NeoFreak. Majoreditor 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poor writing style, non notable per NeoFreak --Astroview120mm 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per NeoFreak (right on the nose.) - Rjd0060 05:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I certainly see the point that the article at the moment seems like original research, not referencing much, and being too short, it's still a real phenomena that is easily observable so it should be described somewhere as it is notable. If someone can point me to another article on Wikipedia where it's already described, I'll change my vote to Delete. Debolaz 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (on the fence) There's about 1,500 ghits (- the "Spacecraft" and "Susan Nash" album references) that seem to cover a wide variety of the uses of the phrase in different forums. While probably a neologism, appears to have been out there for a while & is used by different groups. SkierRMH 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- possible merge to a hunting article if appropiate, otherwise looks like WP:OR Thunderwing 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per [42] [43] and [44] the term does seem to be notable, as it used by a variety of reliable sources. However, the articles mention it is used in a wildlife management context, so I'm guessing that either most references are locked away in journals or are not featured prominently on the Internet. There is probably a scientific name for it as well. I'd suggest keeping it and either expanding (WikiProject Environment could help here) or redirecting it to the proper scientific term (if one exists). 124.148.48.20 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references found by 124-148.48.20, and see also this reference [[45]] (its a google cache of a lost page, but of a valid peer-reviewed Journal article) that shows the concept has been a real part of scholarly discourse since at LEAST 1996. 11+years seems a long time for a neologism, and there appears to be lots of real, scholarly discussion in reliable souces dealing with this concept. Easily passes WP:N guidelines, and this concept appears to be discussed enough by said reliable sources that it is also clearly NOT original research.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That last article does not mention a Bambi effect in so many words. It merely says that Bambi had an effect, which I think is different. If I researched, I may well find articles saying that the book and film of Tarka the Otter had a similar effect in respect of hunting in the UK, but no one talks about a "Tarka-effect" as far as I know. My point is that a source that does not refer to this "effect" as the Bambi effect may not serve as suitable evidence of notability. MikeHobday 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In isolation, no it wouldn't, but it does act as a support source for the prior 3 references. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — I'm not sure how many more examples we need. The term is referenced in lots of blogs but I won't refer to them even though they demonstrate that the term has entered the popular vernacular. It's in The Urban Dictionary, it's described on EconomyPoint.org, The "Oneness Commitment", a sort of New Age community, has an encyclopedia entry on it, where it's referenced in six articles, Mother Linda's News refers to it and check out page 17 of these lecture notes from a zoology course at the University of Wisconsin. There are scads and scads of examples of where the term is used, in the fashion of this article, in the popular culture out there. A search on Google for "Bambi Effect" returns 1600 hits and, from a subsample I took, about 25% of them are direct hits on the term as used in the article and about an equal number are oblique references to it. I'm assuming good faith and, as a result, I realise that those recommending deletion are not doing so for POV reasons. Therefore, I challenge each of you to do the google search for yourself to see if this is, indeed, a neologism that has no cultural currency and that it does not describe something that is relevant to this encyclopedia. I, for one, was neutral until I proved to myself that this article should be kept. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor comment, you can't use the Urban Dictionary as a source anymore than you can a Wiki since it is also user created. I could make up something and add it to the UD tonight if I wanted to. TJ Spyke 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional reference shown above are sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:43, 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 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO in the absence of sources that are substantially about the term rather than simply using the term. Otto4711 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article in its current state smacks of original research, I think the fact that a number of sources have been found so far indicates that this is a real phenomenon. I would, however, suggest paring it down to the bare minimum, tagging it as a stub (if it's not already), and trying to find some stronger sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources added, the article describes a concept that is supported using reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. See this Google news Archive search for additional sources. Some of our early voters may want to revisit the article in light of the sources added. Alansohn 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Someone invented a catch-phrase and its notable. Ugh. What if you haven't watched Bambi and still get the effect? Wouldn't it be a psychological symptom in people that has another description elsewhere? Could it Merge with something that already exists? I was nearly on neutral on this one, maybe more sources would compel me to be claiming Bambi Effect on those roo shooters one day. T--T3Smile 12:29, 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 good series, err... speedy redirect to A Song of Ice and Fire. —Verrai 04:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rains of castamere[edit]

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

non-notable song from fictional universe, copyvio. prod removed by anon. Calliopejen1 00:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Totally non-notable. --S.dedalus 00:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even a Martin junkie such as myself will tell you it's not notable enough to warrant its own article. NeoFreak 01:32, 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--JForget 01:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutesy[edit]

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

Simple dictionary definition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed without comment by creator. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy delete. Per nom. --S.dedalus 00:43, 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. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Fedora Project[edit]

Brazilian Fedora Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, non-notable website or group. Carlosguitar 23:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: NN group. - Rjd0060 05:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: possible speedy under A7 as well, the article provides NO assertions of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At the most, it warrants a one-line mention in the main Fedora article, but not its own article. Adrian M. H. 09:56, 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 SPEEDY KEEP; it's been less than a week since the last AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎[edit]

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment - This article has been recently considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution. The AFD discussion was closed on October 15 as Keep. --Richard 02:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up - The above statement is purely informational and does not reflect my opinion on this nomination.
--Richard 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-up - OK, now it does. See my fuller comment below. --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a hodge podge of facts connected only by the terms, expressions, and historical events, Chinese, Russian Revolution (RR), and Russian Civil War (RCW), covering therefore a three-year span: 1917 (RR) and 1918-1920 (RCW). It consists of what I believe is the original research (OR) of one editor, User:Mikkalai. It relies heavily on primary sources, propaganda, both from the Red Scare period, and from the White Russians who tried desperately to discredit the Bolsheviks. The standard works on the RR or RCW, to the best of my knowledge, do not mention the Chinese. I do not believe there is understanding here of what OR is under WP. I also believe that there is no understanding of notability under WP. There may have been Chinese in the RR and the RCW - but so what? Shall we examine under a separate article every distinct ethnic group within Russia during this 3-year period? Why? Neither historians, nor other authors have done that, to the best of my knowledge. The title itself is contrived and artificial: why not include the period before 1917 as well as after 1921? Finally, one must be extremely cautious when using propaganda published in times of revolutions and civil wars - that's why only scholars are qualified (under WP policy) to make the assessments as to the veracity of such material. The article itself, however, brings in every and any kind of source which either mention or depicts the Chinese in Russia during said three year period.

  • Delete. For all the reasons above. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 02:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not know (or remember) that 10/15/7 consideration for deletion; whatever the WP rules are, the article has changed in the last four days - and not for the better. --Ludvikus 03:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't remember an article you nominated and argued vigorously and repeatedly for deletion 9 days ago? Edward321 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep, see Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War‎ for passionate activity of this user. `'Míkka 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as last time. Article is sourced, and just the propaganda aspects show notability. The consensus from the previous nomination by Ludvikus [46] on 10/11 closed as Keep. Edward321 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Further research tonight has turned up better sources (secondary ones rather than primary ones and in English rather than Russian or Chinese). While there is at least two inconsistencies that need to be resolved (thousands of Chinese troops or tens of thousands?; significant role or insignificant role?) I am now convinced that the topic of the article is encyclopedic and the amount of OR in the article has been reduced to the point where we can "put it in the bathtub and drown it". --Richard 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Change to Delete--editor states below that he will continue to only speak abusively at the article's talk page rather than discuss in a professional manner. per User:Richardshusr IF AND ONLY IF the editors working on the article actually discuss facts in the article, and answer all questions other editors ask regarding sources and content in a collegial and calm way, without insulting any other editor at all. Badagnani 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nah. I understand why you think that way. But we gotta separate the article from the personalities of the editors. Articles stand or fall on their own merits. Imagine that you were told that all the current editors of the article had died. Would you vote to keep or delete this article? If editors of an article misbehave, then block them but don't judge the article by the behavior of the editors. If we did things that way, we would have to delete half of Wikipedia. --Richard 07:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If the editors misbehave..." Don't throw plurals here. There was one single nasty troll with agenda to get rid of the article out of his militant ignorance devoid of listening to any arguments. And no one said not a single word to him. Of course I was pissed off. This attitude to smear the guilt into an even layer is disgusting. `'Míkka 07:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mikka and Badagnani - please take the discussion of editor misconduct back to the article Talk Page. Editor misconduct should not be relevant to an AFD discussion. --Richard 07:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will discuss whatever I want wherever I feel necessary. Trolls may smear my name with shit wherever they want with nobody to wave a finger at him, and I have to sit on my hands. If you are so fond of policing, why don't you speedily close this trolling second AfD nomination? `'Míkka 08:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because admins who take part in debates are not supposed to also close them. Badagnani 08:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There should be no debate at all, that's the point. The second nomination is clean-cut bad faith trolling. Yet you want to chat. I am ranting because it insults me, but what's your grief? To write n-th time how bad am I and how I refuse to cooperate? Yes, I refuse to cooperate with trolls. `'Míkka 08:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yeh, if either Mikka or I had kept out of this debate, one of us could have done a speedy close on the grounds that the previous AFD was only 4 days ago. Maybe another uninvolved admin will put us out of our misery. --Richard 08:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • We can't have a smoothly operating encyclopedia if an editor (for whatever reason) insists on using garbage words, again and again, instead of discussing sources in a calm, professional way and answering and addressing questions addressed to him regarding these sources. That is called being "Wikipedian," as opposed to "un-Wikipedian." I cannot trust the content added by an editor who refuses, even after being asked courteously several times, to abide by this very simple rule the rest of us follow. Badagnani 08:32, 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. W.marsh 00:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and societies in Thanet[edit]

List of clubs and societies in Thanet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Listcruft: Unmaintainable, non-encyclopaedic etc Computerjoe's talk 18:38, 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.
  1. ^ The Scholastic Art & Writing Awards
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_20&oldid=1116721531"