Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy Keep. The version nominated for deletion is a vandal's revision. the_undertow talk 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ryan[edit]

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

Ben sounds like a wonderful fellow. Perhaps a bit too wonderful. :) James52 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax.

Ned Pugh[edit]

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

Blatant hoax by a contributor with a proven record of hoax articles using various sock puppets; all hoaxes related to "Edmund/Edwmnd/Ed Puw/Pugh", "Bro Rhydderch" etc, the most recent being Mount Edmund, now tagged for deletion Enaidmawr 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'll confirm the noms statement. This person (using socks of course) keeps recreating similar articles, which are all hoaxes. Should have speedied it IMO. - Rjd0060 00:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as pure vandalism (sockpuppet) --Sigma 7 06:15, 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. Eluchil404 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Donna (American Band)[edit]

Prima Donna (American Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Former speedy deletion candidate, I removed the corresponding tag as I felt the article had some factual notability. In any case, I'd rather to let you discuss about the article notability. I am neutral about the issue. Angelo 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the nom, but if you thoroughly read my words you can understand I am quite neutral about the issue. Can you please explain why you actually feel this article should be deleted? --Angelo 14:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of secondary sources proving this is legit.Ajaxcornelius 17:40, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uru (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

No evidence presented of notability, or any sources, reliable or otherwise. First AfD seems to have been treated largely as a vote, with no real arguments in favor of keeping put forward. — Swpbtalk.edits 23:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom (no assertion of notability). I also agree that there was no real reasons listed to keep the article in the last AfD. - Rjd0060 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reliable sources cited. — Ksero 00:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge trimmed down info to List of fictional super metals --Lenticel (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, no evidence of notability. A merge per Lenticel would be ok iff any of the information could be reliably sourced. Nick Graves 18:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly nn. JJL 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOURCE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thee (2007 film)[edit]

Thee (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no reliable sources that demonstrate notability in the current version of the article — Ksero 00:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reliable sources makes it seem crystal-bally. 2007 film? 2007 is almost over, so where is it? Obviously too early for this article, as the lack of context agrees. - Rjd0060 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable 3rd party coverage, no IMDB or AMG listing.WP:NF. SkierRMH 03:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, so no evidence of notability. If this film is really coming out in 2007, there would already be plenty of coverage, if it's really notable. The lack of coverage indicates non-notability. Nick Graves 18:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not meet the notability guidelines for films or in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. No WP:RS & WP:CBALL, if not either WP:NN or a WP:HOAX. --Evb-wiki 01:20, 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 Keep. Eluchil404 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tuna fish sandwich[edit]

Tuna fish sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

What next: separate articles for sandwiches with every type of filling? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, okay, I give in! The consensus seems to be that it's worth keeping and I'm admitting defeat. I don't know if I can 'call' a closure and a keep (I'm not an admin) so I'll leave that to someone with the buttons. Amusing discussion and edit summaries though! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an American classic. Carol Johnson 7:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a pretty common sandwich. Even many mundane subjects deserve coverage in an encyclopedia. The sourcing does need improvement. Nick Graves 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As ridiculous as it seems, these are notable sandwiches (this and this. - Rjd0060 00:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mundane & pb&j. --Evb-wiki 00:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article cites three sources, but they are not secondary sources (WP:PSTS) since they don't "draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Therefore, they don't establish notability. I think tuna sandwiches can be covered in the sandwich article. — Ksero 01:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sandwich article lists dozens of sandwiches already, each with its own article. If the sandwich article covered each of them, it would be too long. I can see merging the article with Tuna salad, however. Nick Graves 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a cooking guide. SYSS Mouse 02:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, though I think that's a criterion for improving an article, rather than deleting it. Nick Graves 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook. PB&J is more significantly notable than a tuna fish sandwich. Every type of sandwich does not deserve an article Pilotbob 02:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, Wikipedia is not a cookbook, though a description of typical ingredients and preparation methods is perfectly acceptable in an article about food. No doubt PB&J is more notable than a tuna salad sandwich, but that does not mean that the latter does not also meet the bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. And it is true that not every sandwich deserves its own article, as there are likely millions of types of sandwiches, and most of them not widely known. Such is not the case with a tuna salad sandwich, which is widely known, and served in just about every sandwich shop, and many other restaurants besides. Nick Graves 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tuna salad, as that's exactly where Tuna sandwich points to. You can't tune an AFD debate, but you can tune a fish. --Sigma 7 06:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm wondering if maybe the redirect should go the other way. After all, have you ever seen tuna salad served in a form other than a sandwich, or its close sibling, the wrap? I haven't, and I suspect that any other serving method is exceptional. Nick Graves 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable sandwich like the PB&J and the Fluffernutter. Captain Infinity 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly good, notable cuisine. I've seen both on menus, so keep both the salad and the sandwich. Bearian 22:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non-notable. what's next? a egg salad sandwich article? chicken sandich? roast beef sandwich? You could start creating a never ending amount of "sandwich" articles. Bjewiki 23:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your slippery slope argument does not carry any logic here. I gladly and speedily deleted Ham and cheese croissant as a NN sandwich, but tuna fish is notable in American cuisine. Bearian 16:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, take a look at it now. I never knew it was so fascinating. Bearian 01:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That makes the page better. There's more valuable material now on the page. Mindraker 09:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasquale D'Silva[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment. No reliable sources, appears to fail WP:BIO. Evb-wiki 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original prodder. Only sources offered are his homepage and imdb, which despite ROCKING! (see the article's talk page) offers coverage which is neither significant nor reliable. Google brings up mostly blogs and forums, Google News brings up nothing at all. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no reliable, third party sources offered to show notability. Google search for the cartoon this person animates returned 0 hits, even under alternative spelling [1]. A personal website and a page on IMDb do not show notability. Being a widely recognized figure among contributors to an online forum does not make one notable. Nick Graves 23:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be fair the name of the cartoon is mis-spelled in the article - under the correct spelling it does get a few Google hits, but it doesn't look especially notable either - nor are there even reliable sources to say that his role in making it was a big one. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability shown, and no notability to be found on sources or on google. --Djsasso 16:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sila Nerangalil[edit]

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

Fails to meet future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only sources cited are a single write-up on the upcoming film (still in production) and a couple of photo galleries. One of the source links was broken. Significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources is needed before this can be deemed notable. Nick Graves 23:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find [2] to be the only reliable source mentioned, and it only briefly mentions the article's subject. — Ksero 01:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really confusing; gives a released date in 9/07, but written like a future film. One reference is a photo gallery for a CD (related? no way to tell). No 3rd party references to prove if it's been released or not (and no IMDB or AMG). SkierRMH 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article as it is a genuine artcle. The movie has finished it production and ready for release on Nov30th. Please find the link for the audio review at http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/oct/22sila.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.4.199 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When/If it is actually released it can be readded. --Djsasso 16:57, 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Reilly[edit]

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

Non notable politician. Being a mere candidate for election is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia and no evidence of notability outside his candidature is asserted. Mattinbgn\talk 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With the election four weeks away I would have held off. Saves us the trouble of deleting an article only to have it recreated right away. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree strongly. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and articles of this type should not be kept on the chance that the subject will become notable in the future. If this means recreating an article at a future date when notability is established then so be it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article cites no reliable sources. — Ksero 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has attracted some coverage on Google News sources. [3]. However, there are no sources establishing notability outside his candidacy and while he has some prospects, he will probably not achieve the 9.5% swing to win the seat. Certainly worth a mention in an article on the election in Gilmore if there is one and obviously a standalone article if elected. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability outside this race, which he hasn't won, and likely won't. If he does win, a far better article could be created than this stub anyway. Nick Graves 18:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing to indicate notability has been achieved yet. If that changes an article can be created. Nuttah68 17:05, 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 Redirected.. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urewera 17[edit]

Urewera 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no independent, significant sources for this term. Mentions do not exist outside PR on behalf of those imprisoned. We can't presume that the term will become notable. John Nevard 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If we merge, we must retain the article history for the GFDL. "Merge, then delete" is not a valid vote. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. It's a plausible search term but somewhat inherently POV. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, I'm leaning towards merge as the above have pointed out. Mathmo Talk 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started the article because the one on the raids is already very long, and its likely there will be more information about those arrested coming out in the media. It looks like the main issue that John (and others?) have is that the name "Urewera 17" is only mentioned on Indymedia, the thing is, even if that name is not notable, those 17 people are (I wouldn't say individulally, but as a group anyway) If people have a problem with the name "Urewera 17" could they suggest another name for the article? Lossenelin 02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment When the people concerned are convicted or name suppression is lifted, an article named 'People arrested in the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids' might be appropriate. Little information on those arrested is yet available, so there is no reason to have any separate article on them under any name. There are plenty of articles larger than the 2007 New Zealand anti-terror raids article, and should the references and the most insignificant groups in the reaction section be trimmed down, it will be a lot shorter. John Nevard 03:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Not enough information here to justify a separate article, and there is room in the other article for this information. Nick Graves 18:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like the consensus is to merge, should I be bold and do just that? Lossenelin 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Won't argue, if you feel the content's justified on the main article. John Nevard 10:46, 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--JForget 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oly-ball[edit]

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

Hoax with no GHits. PROD removed with no reason given or changes made to article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per WP:NOT on a number of levels. - Rjd0060 00:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of notability, possible hoax. - Snigbrook 01:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Snigbrook. Majoreditor 02:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With no relevant Ghits (alternate spelling Olly-ball is not related), seems hoaxaliscious. SkierRMH 04:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually seems like it could be a real game (so not a hoax), but no evidence of notability. Nick Graves 18:17, 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 DeleteJForget 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trans-Australis Highway[edit]

Trans-Australis Highway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on a highway that is merely proposed at the moment. The article does not say who is proposing to build the highway and when it is likely to be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence provided to support any of the claims made in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:CRYSTAL. - Longhair\talk 22:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for things roadgeeks make up one day, freely admitting that as a 12-year-old roadgeek I drew a global superhighway network myself. My capital budget, however, has to date fallen short of realizing my ambitions. --Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A road network that would connect Australia with Singapore. No sources showing that anyone is seriously considering this and I doubt that any could be found. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No google hits for either of the terms purporting to be the name of this highway. There is a Transoceanic highway, but unfortunately for this article it's in Peru. --Yeti Hunter 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified and suspect it is made up. Nothing wrong with a proposed highway of such magnitude, if the proposal can be verified. Keep if verified by a realible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources --Jklamo 21:25, 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 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mar Kuriakose Dayara[edit]

Mar Kuriakose Dayara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to establish notability. Actually, it barely seems to establish what it is, eve after I stubbified it to try and find some form of notability. Wizardman 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks infinitely better now, I didn't know what it was on the original version. Wizardman 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't even comprehend this article. But from what I can tell, it doesn't assert any importance or notability. - Rjd0060 00:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral: It seems to be better now that it is rewritten, but I am not aware if WP has any guidelines for churches, etc. or if it would just fall under WP:CORP. - Rjd0060 05:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have made a stab at re-writing the article. I have added references & made it somewhat more comprehensible (I hope ;) SkierRMH 05:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources currently cited are independent of the subject--they are all religious publications affiliated with the church in some way. Thus, the subject fails the general notability guidelines, unless independent, reliable sources are found. Nick Graves 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No good independant sources. --Djsasso 17:03, 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 merge into iPod . Bearian 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ipod docking[edit]

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a legit article Malan8901 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I would recommend that this be merged with the Apple iPod article. There's some information, but not enough for a separate article. Koryu Obihiro 21:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into iPod. PxMa 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into iPod. - Snigbrook 01:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - should be merged into iPod as said previously Bjewiki 23:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is not about ipod but about other electronics devices which support iPod docking. this article thus does not come under Apple iPod (iPod dock are not made by Apple). Rather this article need expention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.118.108.254 (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As people mentioned in the discussion page, the article is about things that, through the dock connector, support iPods. A mention in the "Accessories" subheader is appropriate, but anything beyond that goes into too much unnecessary detail. Butterfly0fdoom 17:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or not - truncate but do not delete - in spite the article does not contain much information, it treats an important content: docking the ipod has become a defacto industry standard. Urgently needed and still missing is information about connector pins, interface standards or at least links to this information. The connectivity of ipods is comparable to parallel or serial PC connectors also referenced in wikipedia. --Pelo 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the iPod dock connector were an industry standard, all DMPs would support it. Yet only iPods and iPhones do. Therefore it is not an industry standard. As thus, the article should be Deleted'. If you want an article about the iPod Dock Connector, then make such an article divulging the technical data of the Dock Connector, not a poorly written article that has no main point whatsoever. There is no interface standard either, because it is PROPRIETARY. Hence DELETE. Butterfly0fdoom 06:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Shorten and merge into Ipod. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Does not warrant its own article. --Djsasso 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ipod docking is not a "craze" and not notable, but information would be useful in Ipod. I would prefer wireless music sharing using that other device on the market - now all I have to find is another person to share with.  :) T.--T3Smile 12:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC) * T3Smile (talk · contribs · logs) - Blocked as sockpuppet. See SSP Achidiac -- Jreferee t/c 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Shorten and merge into Ipod. Not sufficiently notable for its won article. --SmokeyJoe 22:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some information can be merged to Ipod. -- Magioladitis 12:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hochman[edit]

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

Non notable local radio host. No relible sources. STORMTRACKER 94 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. STORMTRACKER 94 21:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't your nominate for the deletion of this article state your intent? PxMa 00:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, I know you do that often. I don't think it is necessary to a delete opinion if you nominate the article. It is somewhat misleading.
  • Delete: He isn't even the host (says he is a producer). Non-notable. - Rjd0060 00:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable executive producer (not host) of a radio programme. No 3rd party references or other notability. SkierRMH 04:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no reliable sources on the article and I cant find any. John Vandenberg 17:08, 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.

This was a keep, per below, and per the subject passing WP:N requirements for people. • Lawrence Cohen 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Roy[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion as when it was placed for speedy deletion, that tag was removed, my reason is article indicates that he is notable for just competing in Gumball 3000 and some illegal runs across the US and very little else. Moosato Cowabata 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, meets WP:N based on media coverage of his record setting run. It may be an illegal record but it's still a record. --Dhartung | Talk 23:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the recent record setting was a very notable event and was covered by major publications including Wired and The New York Times. Alex has also been featured on television such as Fox News regarding the record breaking. Wired's article was a full 6 pages in their November magazine issue, which is not trivial. Alex Roy's autobiography was also recently released. While the fact that it is an autobiography would be considered self-promotion, it was released by a major publiser. Chernysh 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as numerous media appearances over a long stretch of time makes him notable --Morten LJ 11:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is a media person, I have watched him in multiple TV series and in written also. If Alex Roy does not deserve a page, then you must delete Paris Hiltons page also. --kukari 15:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 31 hour and 4 minute transcontinental run across the United States is a notable accomplishment, and will resonate in automotive circles for years (or even decades) to come. Gumball3000 antics aside, the pending film / documentary and existing book deal have solidified Mr. Roy's place in popular culture.
  • Keep Everything about Alex Roy.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.162 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Widely published book, featured on numerous news shows, documentaries and television shows. Jlgolson 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, And disallow personal opinions and persuasions to influence the content of Wikipedia, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.5.128 (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has a widely pubished book, has been featured in newspapers, magazines and on TV. --dinomite 21:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 31:04 transcont. run is a notable accomplishment, and will be talked about in automotive circles for years/decades. Like it or not, he's got a place in pop culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.191.161 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Featured in Wired Magazine, broke the NYC-LA time record--definitely notable! Peteweez 02:26, 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 Speedy delete as hoax.

Mount Edmund[edit]

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

The whole page is a total fabrication; no such place exists ras52 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This appears as a hoax. I actually did find an article with a reference to "Edmond's Monument" [4], but it had nothing to do with the "mount" this article claims that exists. --Oakshade 21:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. No mountain exists at the grid reference specified. [5] - southeast of Abergavenny is relatively flat countryside. Sugar Loaf Mountain, Wales is a couple of miles northwest, and the text is lifted wholesale from that article with silly alterations. Suggest speedying or snowballing this discussion - there's really no need to waste more time on such a silly piece of vandalism. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolute nonsense. The same user, under several user names, is already responsible for a number of other hoax articles, now deleted. He has become active again with the user names EdPuw and JohntheMill (and possibly others - he had something like four or five sock puppets a month or so ago). Enaidmawr 23:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: He now has another sock puppet used to create another hoax article Ned Pugh (just found and tagged as such by me). Enaidmawr 23:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. also suggest speedy. - Snigbrook 23:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as {{db-vandalism}}, per above. --Sigma 7 05:51, 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinodal decomposition[edit]

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

Confessed speculative nomination - I cannot make out whether this is a hoax, (though the topic is real enough), OR, nonsense ... or a really useful article. Any mathematical Wikipedians want to look it over? Springnuts 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google scholar returns sufficiently many hits to convince me that this is a notable topic. The article isn't very understandable in its current form, but I don't think that's a reason to delete it. I don't think pure-math Wikipedians are what's needed, so much as materials scientists; maybe try asking for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics as I think condensed matter physics is the most relevant category for this stuff. —David Eppstein 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please add sources, and say why it is interesting, and to who. --SmokeyJoe 12:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As has been already pointed out this article is on a real subject, it is just currently very hard to understand. This text was written by a friend of mine who originally wrote it for another purpose. When he decided not to use it for what it was originally intended for he put it up here for the community to use. We are currently in the process of re-writing it to make it more accessible to the average reader. -AndrewBuck 18:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the material associated with spinodal decomposition has not been included yet in Wikipedia. It is my hope that this article will encourage others to expand around this article. I've been slow with updates, but that shouldn't be sole reason for deletion. LLJK-emf 19:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be sure that your contributions are attributed to independent sources, and avoid what might be accused of being your own "original research". --SmokeyJoe 21:21, 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 Gnangarra 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of volcanic eruption deaths[edit]

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

Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. Hundreds of thousands of people have died due to volcanic eruptions in modern and ancient times which would make the page unfeasibly long - yet this page gets around that problem by listing six. Oddly even though only six people are listed the page is completely unsourced - which although not in itself a reason for deletion is an additional problem. Another problem is the title of the page which includes not only people by animals, plants and anything else killed by a volcano under its remit. How many dinosaurs have to be listed? Guest9999 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The idea of extrapolating everything to the limits of the absurd is not a very good argument. Yes, we're all aware that there are ______ thousand people who might be covered under the title of any list, and that a lawyer could define deaths as including deaths of "animals, plants and anything else". The "potentially endless" excuse actually undermines good arguments against keeping an article. In this case, the fact that there are six people and only Pliny the Elder seems to be notable beyond his volcanic death, indicates that this is trivia that could be merged into something else. Mandsford 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry, at the time I was writing the argument for deletion I got a bit caught up in the moment. It might be more appropriate for someone to renominate the article more coherently. [[Guest9999 22:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly functional list and despite the nominator's handwaving is not a memorial listing for everyone killed by volcanoes. There are people who are notable and have been killed or have been notably killed. Alluding to the inclusion of dinosaurs or plants is simply WP:WAX in disguise. The list needs sourcing (easily found) and cleanup (easily done). --Dhartung | Talk 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above the plant/dinosaur thing was probably not the best arguement to make but I do not see how it is WP:WAX. [[Guest9999 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Keep apparently the nom is withdrawing the nomination. As well he should, because the people listed here are notable precisely because they died in this way--as distinct from all the other people who gave died this way, but not notably. Pliny's death in an earthquake is not his only notability by a long shot, but it is an important part of his biography and one of the things for which he is known. David A. Johnston was a vulcanologist, whose death at Mt helena during an explosion of which he was the only one to predict the details was nationally reported, is fully documented, and the visitors center at the mountain is named after him. Harry R. Truman had a book and film made about his death there--he refused to leave the area. Two features of the region have since been named after him. (and similarly for the others).
Nor is it indiscriminate--An indiscriminate list would be a list that did include everyone who died there. There is a list of those people for whom a good part of their notability is having died this way, and who have articles in WP to demonstrate the notability. this is highly discriminating, the very opposite of indisciminate.
many lists have been nom for deletion because they are said to be too long. This list is being nominated because it is said to be too short. There is apparently no list that would be acceptable. there is no WP policy against lists. The systematic nomination of lists in W is what is indiscriminate here. DGG (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the title of the article was List of volcanic eruption deaths of people that are notable for having died in this fashion then you would be right. But since it isn't titled that way, in a year from now it will be full of random notable people that happened to die by volcano. --Brewcrewer 06:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
that sort of mess can happen to many articles--we cant g=prevent it by removing all possibly susceptible articles. retitling it is an easy editorial decision.DGG (talk) 04:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to volcanic eruption (merge as an editorial !vote, not content !vote). This list isn't very long and I doubt it will grow as it is (both number of entries and information per entry); inclusion in another article may give it more positive exposure. – sgeureka t•c 17:28, 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 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aayutham Seivom[edit]

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

Fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article cites no reliable sources. — Ksero 01:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to find relevant Ghits to support notability; no IMDB or AMG listing as of yet.SkierRMH 07:06, 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 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aadum Koothu[edit]

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

Fails future films notability guidelines per WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unable to find any relevant Ghits to support WP:NF notability. NO IMDB or AMG listing as of yet. SkierRMH 07:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless references are produced before the end of this AfD. A1octopus 12:36, 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 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7G Rainbow Colony (Hindi Remake)[edit]

7G Rainbow Colony (Hindi Remake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not meet future film notability per WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No 3rd party references to support WP:NF, no IMDB or AMG listing. IMDB listing for director does not list this film. SkierRMH 07:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If casting is not yet complete, as stated in the article, it can't meet WP:MOVIE as per the nominator. (Curious that there's no plot information in the entry for the original film.) Accounting4Taste 22:52, 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 speedy delete and salt the earth. Anyone wishing to recreate Rosster in good faith are welcome at WP:DRV. MaxSem 20:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosster[edit]

Rosster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Twat pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most probably a hoax. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/85.189.82.128 for backup detail. The latest sock User:Paulnockers was recently blocked for vandalism. Seems to be an continued attempt by some hoaxters (one hoaxter?) or some meatpuppets to perpetuate this fiction. Regardless of that, even if the sources were verifiable, the article failes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Into The Fray T/C 19:18, 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. Anthøny 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Boman[edit]

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

Non-notable perpetual candidate. Sliposlop 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the large quantity of references seems to disagree. Pages that link to the subject of the article (aside from the two band paged) also support notability. --Sigma 7 07:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- notable and referenced perpetual candidate per Sigma 7. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, the inclusion criteria for notability for politicians (WP:BIO#Additional criteria) lists the following:
  • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  • Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
Boman does not fulfill the first and third of the list of criteria. If you look at the (46 total) references ("press coverage", 2nd criterion) in more detail:
  • At least 11 references are from the Michigan Libertarian Party (which naturally, would support and promote their candidate, Scott Boman). This shouldn't really count as "objective press", but as "advertising press".
  • 10 references are general voter information, such as that provided by the League of Women Voters, which supplies info on all candidates for an election. Just because he's a candidate, he's included. This is not "press coverage because he's exceptionally notable", it's "press coverage because he's one of many candidates".
  • 7 references are articles about election results. Again, just because he was a candidate, he's included. For example, http://politicalgraveyard.com/geo/MI/ofc/usrep1990s.html shows that he was defeated...but so were a huge number of other candidates. This is not "press coverage because he's exceptionally notable", it's "information because he's one of many candidates".
  • 4 references are Scotty Boman hosted webpages (either http://scottyboman.lpwm.org or http://scottyboman.org)
  • 8 references list Scott Boman as an author.
Therefore, it does not seem that Boman fulfills the second of the list of criteria. Therefore, he appears to fulfill none of the criteria for inclusion as a politician.
Sliposlop 20:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sliposlop 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC) (corrected typo, added "46", disambiguate last sentence)[reply]
Sliposlop 09:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (another typo "covereage", clarify sentence regarding general information)[reply]
Comment - Enumerating references that do not support notability, but have application to supporting other content in an article, does not show that the subject is not notable, nor does it show that the article fails to assert notability of the subject matter.--Libertyguy 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the large list of references do not satisfy the requirements of reliable sources that support notability. It only supports existence. -- Whpq 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While it is true, that a "large list" does not, by itself, show much of anything, the fact is that the references support the content to which they are footnoted. This comment isn't a reason for deletion of this article, because the article is not simply a "large list." The sources are reliable for supporting the content that they reference. For instance, referencing a web page belonging to the subject is a reliable source if the content being supported is that the subject holds a specific point of view. In such an example, the purpose of the reference is not to support notability. If, however, one is referencing a source that shows notable achievement, such as a larger number of votes than another notable figure, then a source such as official government statistics is reliable. If one is trying to verify notable media presence, then citing news publications is appropriate. In sort, you have made a true statement that is not applicable to your position.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -
  • In 2006 alone, 23,524 well-enumerated Michigan voters cast a ballot for the Creswell/Bowman ticket. It is absurd and disingenuous to say that a candidate receiving that much support from the vox populi is "non-notable".
  • Bowman is a prominent spokesperson for the ONLY political party to have (openly & honestly) supported the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which when put to the voters, was enacted with a 16-percentage-point margin. He seems to represent a popular -- if clandestine -- position on an extremely contentious issue, even if there is much cognitive dissonance among the voters with respect to support for parties vs. issues. To delete mention of Bowman is to pretend that there is no disagreement on how to deal with racial discrimination. I daresay that the issue of race is one which is NOT settled in America.
  • The persistence of people arguing for deletion is, itself, is probably the strongest argument for continued inclusion. Truly "non-notable" topics wouldn't receive any discussion at all, only silence. The very fact that there is a vigorous group of people trying to recategorize Bowman as an Orwellian unperson is tacit recognition of his notability. Truly "non-notable" politicians wouldn't have the large number of active political enemies Bowman has.
  • Much of the same argument for "non-notability" was true of Abraham Lincoln in 1859.

Drcampbell 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The last name of the subject does not contain a letter "W." However, it is clear that you are writing about the same subject since you are referring specifically to the Michigan politician who ran for Lieutenant governor.--Libertyguy 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
When I use the word "notable", I mean it strictly in the context of the criteria for inclusion within the Wikipedia at WP:BIO. I do not mean "notable" as defined in other contexts.
  • Drcambell wrote: It is absurd and disingenuous to say that a candidate receiving that much support from the vox populi is "non-notable".
This article is "non-notable" per the Wikipedia criteria in WP:BIO. Tens of thousands of people may vote for a candidate for local sheriff, but that doesn't mean that the candidate fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia simply because of the votes.
  • Drcambell wrote:The persistence of people arguing for deletion is, itself, is probably the strongest argument for continued inclusion.
This is not part of the criteria for inclusion. In fact, this article seems to have only been nominated for deletion once, which would actually contradict your conclusion.
Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep - This article was nominated for deletion before and the decision was to keep it. As a former Chair, and Vice Chair of a statewide political party, this subject is notable. This Michigan Politician has also been a candidate for his states second highest office. Finally, his constant presence on the states political stage is also notable. I question the objectivity of this deletion nomination. If he met the same criteria in the Democrat or Republican party, I doubt this discussion would even be taking place.--Libertyguy 04:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that several editors in the community have done considerable editing on this article. This article has withstood the test of time, and a consensus has developed to keep it by proxy of the fact that others found it to be worth editing.--Libertyguy 05:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no link to any previous AFD. If you are referring to the PROD (proposed deletion), you were the one who contested the proposed deletion with removal of the PROD tag. There is no discussion with a PROD, and hence no concenus to keep, or any sort of concensus for that matter. -- Whpq 12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No change. I am reviewing the rules about nominating articles for deletion after PROD removal. Even if it turns out there is no rule against it, my motion is to keep for the other reasons given by myself, and other reasons given by other editors.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Michigan Politician meets the criteria, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Several examples of "press coverage have been presented." The fact that some of these articles include discussion of other candidates, does not negate the fact that the coverage exists. In some articles Boman is the Primary topic. For example, ("Campbell, Bob, Dawson Bell and Zachary Gorchow. "POLITICALLY SPEAKING: Scotty Boman is running again", Detroit Free Press, May 22, 2006.) is an article who's title makes my point, and has a circulation of 329,989 Daily. A rough consensus to keep has been reached. One editor continues to argue the contrary.--69.246.54.228 14:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]



  • Keep - The subject has been in major publications; the assertion that the subject has only been written about in Libertarian Publications and voter guides is incorrect. He has been the subject of articles in a variety of publications. Most notably:
  • He was the subject of an article in a major daily, the Detroit Free Press (Campbell, Bob, Dawson Bell and Zachary Gorchow. "POLITICALLY SPEAKING: Scotty Boman is running again", Detroit Free Press, May 22, 2006.)
  • He was endorsed by another major daily (Editorial, Staff. "Detroit City Elections", Detroit News, 1997-08-31.). Why would a major daily (where notability is the name of the game) endorse a non-notable candidate?
  • The subject and the organization he founded were topics in Kalamazoo's major daily. (Mitchell, Jacqueline. "19 arrested at party in taboo Lafayette area", Kalamazoo Gazette, July/August, 2006.)

I could go on to describe his contributions to the Kalamazoo music scene in the 1980's but that would contain original research.--Kzooman 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I use the word "notable", I mean it strictly in the context of the criteria for inclusion within the Wikipedia at WP:BIO. I do not mean "notable" as defined in other contexts. Local newspapers publish endorsements on local candidates for every local election. This does not constitute "substantial news coverage" indicated by WP:BIO. Getting profiled in the Kalamazoo's major daily (Kalamazoo Gazette) is not "substantial press coverage"; to put things in perspective, the population of Kalamazoo, Michigan is around 75,312 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2642160.html) Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citing the census data on the population of Kalamazoo, doesn't refute the comments made by kzooman. These were only examples, not an exhaustive list. Two of these were the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit News which both serve a large metropolitan area. Sliposlop doesn't cite census data on Metropolitan Detroit.--Libertyguy 04:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still say keep. I return to see some of my points have been made for me. There is more to consider. An article on a notable subject, need not list a plethora of superfluous references in a variety of publications to indicate widespread notability of the subject; this would be an example of over-referencing. This article has references supporting it’s specific content. Some of the references used, support notability and wide-spread recognition.

Difficulty un exhuming articles from major papers, long after the fact, does not mean they don’t exist. Many major publications stop providing free online access to articles after only a couple of weeks. There may be far more such articles published without them being accessible. The fact that some articles can be located by reliable third parties ( such as the Lansing City Pulse (Berg, Erica. "A ‘different’ state board may await winners", Lansing City Pulse, October 2, 2002.)[ http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/021030/votersguide/boardofed.html], is an indicator (I know Michigan’s capital is a small town, that is beside the point. Many publications are circulated beyond the city limits of the city after which they are named. Ever see a New York Times outside of New York?). Other examples I was able to locate readily (that remain available) are:

I forgot to sign the above comment attributed to me by the SineBot. The comment is mine, and I sign it here.--Kzooman 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
  • The Oakland Press (which serves Oakland County, Michigan) article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates running for the State Board of Education, and the article indicates that the bottom six who did not win (including Boman) "each received 1 percent to 2 percent of the vote".
  • The News Herald article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates "running for the governor's and lieutenant governor's seats".
  • The Michigan Education Digest article mentions Boman's name only once, within a list of many candidates running for the State Board of Education.
These three articles do not bolster any notion of notability for Boman; they only chronicle that he was one of many candidates.
-Sliposlop 10:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC); -Sliposlop 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)(corrected, "each", clarified "bottom six")[reply]
  • Keep - There are numerous examples of non-libertarian publications in the refrences. That alone makes this entry noteworthy. Mr. Boman has been mentioned in the press with a much higher frequency that nearly all other third party candidates. Having information about third party candidates, and not just the Democrats and Republicans, helps maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. --Gstempfle 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Gstempfle wrote: There are numerous examples of non-libertarian publications in the refrences. That alone makes this entry noteworthy.
Most of the non-libertarian references simply chronicle the results of an election or provide voter information (please see my earlier enumeration).
  • Gstempfle wrote: Having information about third party candidates, and not just the Democrats and Republicans, helps maintain Wikipedia's policy of NPOV.
Wikipedia should not have information about any candidates simply because they are candidates. One reason is because of the policy on "no advertising" at WP:SPAM. The other reason is that the criteria for inclusion are in WP:BIO.
Sliposlop 23:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article meets Wikipedias criteria for Biographies of living persons, This discussion and a careful review of the article show that:
  • The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • 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. It should be noted that in addition to political activity, the subject had an article in Physical Review A. This publication only prints articles that comprise such a contribution.
--Redandready 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Publication of an article in Physical Review alone does not constitute a "widely recognized contribution...part of the enduring historical record". Not every author, and co-author, of every published scientific article in the Physical Review is in the Wikipedia, nor should they be; the Physical Review is not "widely read" by people outside of the field of physics (you will not find it near the checkout counter of the local grocery store or at the bookstores of airports). Even within the scientific community, he does not rank in terms of other articles citing his article, as demonstrated by the Thomson ISI Highly-Cited service. The criteria for inclusion of politicians in WP:BIO states:
  • Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.
  • Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability.
It does not appear that Scott Boman fulfills the criteria as a politician. (Please read my other comments above, especially the enumeration of reference sources)
Sliposlop 23:52, 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 Nomination withdrawn per the snowball clause - apparently the author in question has many reviews in notable newspapers, though they are from several years ago and did not show up in the first few pages of a Google search. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N.M. Kelby[edit]

N.M. Kelby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable writer. Though notability is asserted (no speedy allowed here), they do not meet the notability guidelines - no hits on Google News, and most Google hits are pages about her books (from her publisher), not the author herself. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No Consensus. Anthøny 08:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC). Having reconsidered, following a request from an interested Wikipedian, the arguments put forward by each party in this discussion, I retract my original decision and close this debate as Delete, without prejudice to review. I apologise to any parties for any disruption my previous closure caused, as well as making this mistake - we all do it once in a while, but nevertheless it should not have happened. Anthøny 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diavlog[edit]

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

An unsourced article on a blogging neologism, deletion requested by an anon at my talk page. No independent sources, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article does not demonstrate that the term has gained acceptance outside of bloggingheads.tv. There is only one reliable source and it too references bloggingheads.tv Perhaps the article can be recreated later as it currently doesn't seem to be notable.Pdelongchamp 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just added some more sources (tons more available if needed). This term is used in the same way that vlog is used, and although not in as frequent of use, it is clear from googling that it has sufficiently entered the lexicon to be of importance enough for entry here. Additionally, added list of people who already have wikipedia pages who are frequent diavloggers. (many, if not most, of which use the term themselves either on their blogs or elsewhere) The list is indeed large, and I would not be opposed to paring it down, but I only included a portion of the total that I could have included. (attempting to show the widespread use of the word, even among those who already are important enough to have wikipedia pages) (Cardsplayer4life 20:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Cardsplayer4life, I think the issue with the article is that it doesn't contain reliable sources that assert its notability. Also, the article contents are not verifiable. I can't read a single line, ask "what reliable source said this?" and be able to find out. For all I know, it could be someone's opinion. Please reference the sources you used to write the article. That will make a big difference. Pdelongchamp 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I'd say BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and "Diavlog" isn't. Maybe write an article on BH.tv, and make this a redirect to it. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is already a fairly common term, and in time it will be as common as blog or vlog. It should not be merged with vlog because diavlogs are not vlogs. -asx- 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-asx-, could you reference your claim that it is a common term or place the references into the article if they are reliable sources? thanks. Pdelongchamp 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sources fail to establish notability. That a blogging neologism has a presence on listserv should not come as a surprise to anyone, but an encyclopedia requires a bit more authority. Deiz talk 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is a term that is used by video bloggers; Doesn't need to be removed as per above comments. Liveforever22 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But none of the keep opinions provide any back up for the opinion that it should be kept. Reliable sources? Verifiability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 00:41, 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 withdrawn by nominator, defaulting to keep. —Kurykh 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

38 Geary[edit]

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

Bus lines, unless there is a distinctive quality that makes it distinguished among all bus lines in the world, are non-notable. This bus line has no distinctive quality, and most of the encyclopedic information is related more to the B Geary line than to the bus line itself. The entry at List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines is sufficient. Hence, as nominator, I urge to delete the article. Kurykh 18:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Geary Boulevard is the primary main east-west thoroughfare of San Francisco (Market Street is only a relatively short southwest-to-northeast street) and this is the only bus route that covers most of the entire length, from the Financial District to Ocean Beach. One of the most important and used bus routes in all of San Francisco. --Oakshade 19:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The boulevard's notability does not translate into the bus line's notability (or lack thereof). One might as well say that the 30-Stockton line is important because it connects Caltrain to Chinatown (btw, it's also the slowest bus line in the city). —Kurykh 20:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't because Stockton isn't such a major street at Geary is. And it's the bus line I'm referring to as "important", as well as "major", which does satisfy what you're looking for in your nom's comments "a distinctive quality." I lived in SF for five years, believe me, this line is very important. --Oakshade 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've lived in the city for 17 years, so I know what you are talking about. However, it is "important" and "major" only within the context of Muni, not by its own standing. No one is disputing that this bus line is one of the most heavily used in the system, but creating a wholly separate article instead of an entry in one of the already-existing Muni articles is unnecessary, because, in all reality, there isn't really much to talk about. —Kurykh 21:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's important not only in the context of Muni, but all of San Francisco and, arguably, transit in the Bay Area. As with many of these articles (see London Buses route 12, which was AfD'd and kept, for example), there is plenty of room for expansion and already there appears too much topic specific content to be part of the MUNI article. --Oakshade 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For convenience, let's break down the current article and analyze it:
      • History — it isn't even really a history section, and all the information is already in the main Muni article.
      • Future — info is more relevant in the B Geary line than here. If it becomes a BRT line, sure, but that's still in the committee stage and no one knows if it will ever be built (WP:CRYSTAL).
      • Schedule — wholly unencyclopedic information
      • Everything else — in List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines.
    • Also, about your comment about this fitting into "a distinctive quality," note that the part that comes after it is also important: "among all bus lines in the world." The 38 line in no way fits this category. —Kurykh 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • As mentioned above, there's plenty of room for verifiable expansion for all of those sections. You only AfD'd this within 20 hours of its creation [9]. Wikipedia is a never ending process and it takes time, sometimes alot, for articles to improve. --Oakshade 22:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did take future expansion into account. Perhaps this was a bit too fast, but I really can't see any mode of further expansion beyond a simple bus line. If you have any, then by all means propose. I'm willing to be persuaded. —Kurykh 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the only bus route in the San Francisco Municipal Railway that has its notability in Geary Boulevard and in the B Geary article, so this gives the article a little in-depth. I've lived in this city for 14 years, and the 38 Geary is one of the busiest routes in the system, and people should get the chance to know the history of the route. That's why there's the B Geary article. Why don't you do that? -Goodshop 00:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This really is a major route, as important as any subway line or municipal railway line. Though we do not include every bus route, some are notable, such as this one. DGG (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's true. In fact, the reason why I created it on the first place is because it had the B Geary article, and why don't you go after that? Because it is planned infastructure, and this is current infastructure. (To clarify, go to WP:NOT or WP:CRYSTAL.) -Goodshop 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sufficiently persuaded, and hence withdraw the nom. But your last sentence misinterprets my words and uses the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. —Kurykh 02:48, 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 Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halopedia[edit]

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

A fan wiki for Halo. Sources: the wiki, PRweb, and a press story which mentions it so briefly it doesn't even have the name. Merged once, deleted once by previous AfDs. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is actually the third nomination. If deleted, it will be the second deletion, but it's still the third nomination. --OGoncho 22:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. You could have just speedied this as A7. Past keep !votes have included such "insightful" comments as It's a good Wiki with a good community and a lot of hard work put into it. EconomicsGuy 06:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth - Not a sufficient fanpedia, certainly not worthy of inclusion on an online encyclopedia, of all places.--WaltCip 17:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After this AFD was posted, I added two new links: this and this. I find that these two links sastify the critiria for WP:WEB. In addition, one of these news article is by Bungie, a company of the former subsidiary of Microsoft.--Aranho 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete passing mentions and PR posts, doesn't satisfy WP:WEB in my book, there's no in-depth coverage they just confirm its existence.Someone another 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Status has not changed. --OGoncho 19:46, 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 speedily deleted as having no assertion of notability per WP:CSD#A7. Neil ☎ 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Behnaz Mozakka[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a memorial and the subject doesn't meet any notability requirements - she died a tragic death in a terrorist attack. Jayran 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-If you allow one then more and more will start poping upYourname 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, this individual wouldn't meet WP:BIO for any other reason and, in the article about the bombing, there's a link to information about her, which seems sufficient. Accounting4Taste 00:52, 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. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite small number of contributors (3:1 including nom), logic of nomination and "delete" views is sound.

List of hotels in Malaysia[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory nor a travel guide Furthermore, a category "Hotels in Malaysia" already exists. Tomj 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, a category "Hotels in Malaysia" already exists."....which is a damn good reason to have a list, which if done properly can convey far more information than any category could ever hope to do. Jcuk 20:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a notable intersection, and can be properly handled by the category. Eluchil404 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. A perfectly reasonable subdivision of hotels. --SmokeyJoe 22:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete better serves as a category, wikipedia is not a directory. Jbeach sup 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People Eating Tasty Animals[edit]

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

I'm bringing this from prod to AFD, because it's already been nominated for AFD once, and I think it should get more attention here. No vote. Ral315 » 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep as sourced and notable. Important as a test case of cybersquatting laws (and would be notable for that alone), but also well-known as a counterorganization to its similarly-named doppelganger. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This and this are enough to convince me. Zagalejo^^^ 18:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where the page could really use an WikiFary's blessing, I feel that it needs to be kept for it's historical value. Xitit 19:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It was a prominent case of "domain squatting" which was fairly widely covered in the late 1990's, and which led to precedent-setting quasi-legal actions over the ownership of the "Peta.org" domain lasting several years. AnonMoos 19:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs some cleanup to 2007 standards but a notable organization (primarily for the domain case, though). --Dhartung | Talk 23:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Sourced, and one of the best known cases of domain squatting. Edward321 00:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per previous reasons, plus, frankly, PETA getting egg in their face makes me grin. HalfShadow 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. Jtrainor 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE no such organization exists. The website lost it's domain not because of what it was is but of what it wasn't. It didn't exist. It was far from the first time a parody lost it's domain as well. There is nothing historically or culturally notable about this non-existent group. If the only reason for keeping this is the debate about cyber-squatting than a position in cyber-law or about the person who bought the register would be more proper. The issue I have is not with the page, nor the content; rather that this page, as it is titled now, references a non-existent company. If it is strongly felt that the case is is important (to which I agree), then a delete of this article and the creation of Mike_Doughney which could cover this topic, or an expansion at Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act. Or both. Thoughts? I would argue that many would hold Mosaic Communications Corporation et al vs AOL LLC and Unnamed regarding Netscape.org and Mosaic-Netscape.com to be more important as two legal, and partnered companies fought over two names held by each-other. We could also look at the case of WWF vs WWF over the wwf.com site, which was later fought over when some teens bought and squatted the site wwf.com, the final ruling overturning many of the precedents previously set regarding cyber-squatting as the then WWFE pointed to the lack of use/update to the wwf.com site. Prior to this PETA case was NWA.com and NWA.org National Wrestling Allience vs National Wanking Association, the first parody case, and there is also the cases about shared legitimate names. The case itself is relevant, not the entity, or non-entity, in this situation. The information is in the wrong place and the non-company itself is not relevant. A redirect to People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals#Domain_name_disputes would solve this issue. This group deserves mention, not its own page.Lostinlodos 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's a "Snowball Keep"? And if deletion is called for because something is "non-existent" then 90% of Wikipedia would require deletion. Captain Infinity 22:29, 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 Redirect. the_undertow talk 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queen bee (subculture)[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR article, if the concept is notable and encyclopedic, it's better the article were started from scratch based on WP:RSes not the article author's observations and opinions. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or at least Merge to a broader article about adolescent cliques. There's a best-selling book by Rosalind Wisemen called Queen Bees and Wannabes that discusses this concept. It's mentioned in many other books, as well. I don't think OR is a big problem; this is basically how Wiseman defines the term. (See [10], which summarizes Wiseman's book.) Zagalejo^^^ 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conformity (psychology). As an aside, it reminds me a lot of the "when you presume you press you... to ... me..." scene from 8 Simple Rules Will (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while it may be a legitimate topic (maybe?), right now the little that is here looks to all be OR. Bjewiki 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conformity (psychology) looks to be a good action. -- Whpq 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Conformity (psychology) seems to be the best option. Liveforever22 21:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a child psychologist talking about this right now on tv. Seems like a legitimate, observable social phenomenon to me, deserving of it's own article. If the article had more articles linking to it, I'm sure more editors could find it, develop it further and bring it away from it's basis in original research. Knyght27 01:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as OR. No point in a re-direct: who will ever type in "Queen bee (subculture)". Springnuts 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply "Queen bee (subculture)" would be useful as an entry for the disambig page for Queen Bee which somebody might type in when trying to find information about the phenomenom. -- Whpq 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs a stub template, though. It is essentially a stub. For disambiguation, there is a musical group with the same name.--Libertyguy 23:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of TNA Knockouts[edit]

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

This page is unnecessary. All the relevant information is already covered in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster and List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni. We purged a few other lists similar to this one over the summer (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE Divas) - DrWarpMind 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. This is already covered elsewhere. The Hybrid T/C 18:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally redundantMPJ-DK 06:35, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KVR-pixojet[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The article is written like spam, and this Google search yields only the company's own website. — Wenli (reply here) 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe speedy (criteria G11). - Snigbrook 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam per Snigbrook.--Gavin Collins 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra-speedy as copyvio. The heading admits "All contents are from kvrpixojet.com" and sure enough, when I visited the website it's a word for word copy. I blanked one section but haven't checked out the others. I believe the WP:CSD#G12 permits immediate deletion of articles if there's no meaningful non-infringing text. Plus the article is 100% spam, and the company is utterly non-notable. Wikidemo 17:19, 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 qualified keep. Unlike its counterpart List of amateur radio emergency service groups, this article is not entirely made up of external links. However it is clear from the discussion that it is expected that external links should replaced by external links - the format should be along the lines of List of amateur radio organizations/Internal link version but without external links alongside each entry. Where possible a short stub detailing why the organization is notable should be created. WP:NOT#LINK is policy and cannot be overriden simply because editors find it incovenient. A stubs and lists with many redlinks are fine (Wikipedia is a work in progress), but link farms are not. WjBscribe 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur radio organizations[edit]

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

This has survived a previous AFD; See (previous AFD). Needless to say, consensus back then cannot overule core wikipedia policies on external links and what wikipedia is all about. The subject of the current article runs contrary to WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#DIR. Plus, this page will not be complete. Instead of maintaining this page, create articles on notable amateur radio organizations and categorize them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG delete. The most blatant violation of WP:NOT#LINK I have ever seen (and I've seen a lot). How did this ever survive afd last time?! Crazysuit 20:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who was around the last time this article came under AfD consideration, I remember how bad it was trying to continually revert edits to the "External links" sections of all radio related articles. At the time, creating this list and ensuring editors could find their club on this list or add it resulted in the actual articles being avoided. Although I feel it is against Wikipedia policy, I suggest that we KEEP this article or move it to another wikimedia space that is better suited for this sort of list.Andrewjuren(talk) 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't get you. Why would you want to keep a list of external links? What if there is a notable amateur radio organization without a home page? How would you list it then? This list I'm afraid, is not finite and categories serve us better. And why would you want editors to find their club on the list, what do you mean by that? And to sum it, – see how I improved this club page [11] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Just a directory of external links, this doesn't belong anywhere in the Wikipedia space. At least the above editor is honest in admitting this violates policy, but really, creating a list to divert spam from other articles isn't the way to do it. Try adding a hidden comment in the external links section of the relevant articles, you can find one at Wikipedia:Spam#Tagging articles prone to spam. Masaruemoto 05:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator is mistaken that "consensus ... cannot overule core wikipedia policies" - that is why the phrase 'ignore the rules' is around and for just this type of information, as explained by user:Andrewjuren. And if they were all turned into Articles, as nom suggests, how long would it be till all thoes 3 sentences stubs got AfD'd and we would loose the information compleatly? The current method is the best method to handle this Article. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with what you have to say. WP:IAR says: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." I can't see any reason why deleting a set of external links does any harm to wikipedia. We are an encyclopaedia, with information to read, not a web directory. Secondly, the point I'm trying to make here is not notability, but rather the encyclopaedic usefulness of external links, which is certainly not comprehensive. Thirdly, there is no clause in Wikipedia that says that a stub has to be AFDd. If there is, please prove me wrong. See how I improved this club page [12] Fourthly, this is not an article, it is a list, without references. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I commend you for your good work for that club... but what your suggesting would cause each sentence in the current article to become its own Article, how long till each of thoes Article were removed for lack of content? Simply put, what we have for now is the best solution. I have no objection for individual club members making articles such as you did and changing the link at that time. I dont believe removing this current list would be doing anyone a favour, esp. someone looking for a club near them. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have an AFD policy that cites an article should be deleted just because it is a stub. If it is a stub, it gives authors (and club members) the chance to improve it. As long as the club is notable, and has independent third party reliable sources, any attempt to AFD it will meet with failure. The list is NOT the best solution. It would have been different if it were a list of wikipedia articles, but a list of external links are a strict no no. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are in fact encouraged as one of the good ways of building articles. DGG (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly these organizations are notable as a group and many may be notable on their own. Their service in periods of disasters makes them as notable as any of the paid services that that work in conjunction with, such as police or fire services. In some areas, members are actually considered first responders. If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here. Did I miss it or are groups like REACT specifically missing from these lists? Vegaswikian 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not contesting the notability of the organizations. What is being contested is that the page is a collection of links that is against wikipedia policy. "If anything, the list shows that we need to work on creating articles here" -- by all means please do so, but do not vote keep because of sentiment. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same as the discussion held last time this came up in January. These are not video game characters or school drama clubs, these are chartered organizations affiliated with national or international counterparts. Also, whoever decided to rename the old AfD discussion rather than creating a new one needs to fix the link on the article talk page and AfD history pages as you managed to point all old references to your new AfD. That link, referring to the AfD held in January, points to this discussion now. --StuffOfInterest 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not contesting the notability. The policy on external links does not discriminate between video game characters or amateur radio organizations. We have a uniform policy. Secondly, please do not confuse notability with a non-useful link farm. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have a uniform policy on external links. Each person provides their own thoughts based on common sense to each case, and we record what is commonly considered common sense into guidelines. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We do have a policy, but the addition of links in the ==External links== sections is subjective. But we have no sanctioned policy for a page devoted exclusively to external links. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [13] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve, a quick scan tells me this is a work in progress with some very notable organisations in there that do not have articles yet. John Vandenberg 17:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss: I've created an alternate version of the List of amateur radio organizations list which has each entry pointing to a potential article about that club. External links have been moved to the end of each entry in the list as required to prove notability and verifiability. (Note: the page contains only up to and including "Brazil". It's just to get feedback as to whether us editors thing this would be a move in the right direction.) Please comment. Andrewjuren(talk) 17:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a lot of red, but I could live with it. In the early days I'm sure Wikipedia had more red than blue links in articles. --StuffOfInterest 17:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this page is inline with wikipedia policies for list pages. If you can also add neutral references it would be more bulletproof. =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support a move to this format and, if consensus agrees, suggest the associated AfD also move to the same format. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both lists could work this way. It preserves the content while pushing the focus towards existing and needing to be created articles. --StuffOfInterest 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is not need to ignore any rules--lists such as this are perfectly in keeping with WP policies. The individual items in an article just have to be relevant and significant, and there is no rules against lists, nor are they even discouraged. Some articles are best that way.DGG (talk) 19:16, 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 - those advocating that the article be kept have failed to address the fundamental problem that it consists merely of a collection of external links. WjBscribe 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of amateur radio emergency service groups[edit]

List of amateur radio emergency service groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The page is a collection of external links. As per our policy on external links and what wikipedia is not: WP:NOT#LINK it serves little encyclopedic value. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please expand? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are not video game characters or high-school drama clubs. These are chartered organizations with affiliaties to national counterparts and local government services. --StuffOfInterest 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Link farms are not permissible under policy. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [14] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Nothing but a collection of external links which is something Wikipedia is Not. Eluchil404 22:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With List of amateur radio organizations. and flag as a stub. This is not an article, but can be developed into one. The content is too similar to the List of amateur radio organizations. to be its own article.--69.246.54.228 03:41, 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 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan K[edit]

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

Non-notable bio which doesn't meet WP:BIO. 18 G-hits on his full name "Rajan Kailasanathan", none of which were WP:RS. Many more hits on the article title name "Rajan K" but that's to be expected with a first name and initial. Pigman 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No real assertion of notability. Llajwa 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Snigbrook 00:05, 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 under A7 and G11 rather than any consensus below. Eluchil404 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B.R. Records[edit]

B.R. Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

record label that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 17:04, 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. -- Longhair\talk 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity (Christian comic)[edit]

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

procedural nomination Previously considered at AFD under another name. Proposed for deletion by User:Keb25—nominator's reasoning: "No third-party references, no claim of notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Sfacets 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no WP:RS can be found to establish adequate notability. Simply being serialized and widely available for sale isn't sufficient reason to keep the article. MURGH disc. 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. 66.109.248.114 23:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been listed on the Notice Board for WikiProject Comics.-- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first AfD clearly failed to produce any reliable sources and so this is failing WP:N. (Emperor 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of sources establihing notability. AS always, I will reconsider if that changes. Nuttah68 18:00, 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, and no consensus to merge and/or redirect. If you wish for this article to be merged/redirected still, please propose it editorially. Daniel 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Carta (video game)[edit]

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

I have marked it for deletion because it's about a game that already has 2 sub-articles to it. It is un-monitored and un-edited for a long time and tehre is only 1 thing in the discussion page that offers a suggestion for it's deletion. url: www.freelancebusinessman.com 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This article seems to function as, in effect, a disambiguation page for the games in this series. The fact that the two games in the series each have better articles does not seem to be a reason to delete this short article about the series as a whole. --Metropolitan90 17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metropolitan90. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Magna Carta: Crimson Stigmata It's a 2-article disambig (redundant) pretending to be an article (also redundant). One of the games is Korean-only whereas the European release of Crimson Stigmata/Tears of Blood is just called Magna Carta, making Magna Carta (video game) a logical redirect. Should further games be released or the material become available to actually write about the series then the redirect can be undone. The other game is also wiki-linked in MC:CS' lead. Someone another 09:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason to redirect to one or the other game (ROK only games are still notable). While the quality is low no policies (or even, AFAICT, guidelines) are violated by simply keeping it. Eluchil404 09:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per, but to Magna Carta: The Phantom of Avalanche as it is the first of the two games. Coversion to a disambiguation page would be OK, but it should not remain as an article unless it can be expanded substantially beyond the content of the two other articles. --SmokeyJoe 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer architecture and organisation[edit]

Computer architecture and organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not an encyclopedic article at all. I would speedy it but can't find one that quite fit the bill. Perhaps a snowball delete will get rid of it speedily. Malcolmxl5 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Because ... um ...just look at it folks. This is someone's lecture notes outline, not an article. and the title is so random it doesn need a redirect or anything. Like nom, I can't think the basis to speedy, but perhaps after a few comments we can speedy close.Obina 16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not sure this was intended as an article or just a place to post his lecture notes. In any case it actually asserts copyright so I'll put up a speedy on that basis. --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As to the copyright: the article was originally created by User:Ratheeshs2004, and was later edited by him. The email address given in the page is [email protected], so I assume this means that the original creator posted his own data. Having said all of that, though, the article is entirely off-topic, and seems to be just the first page of a syllabus. Besides, there are already articles on computer architecture and computer organization. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is part of a syllabus for a course at some university, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- as per Metropolitan, not encyclopedic. The rest of the syllabus might make it so, but it's not here...--SarekOfVulcan 15:22, 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 Merge and redirect to Peel Engineering Company, without prejudice to recreation. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering)[edit]

West Marine Ltd. (Peel Engineering) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No evidence in the page that the subject meets the notability criteria, the article is not written from a neutral point of view and the page seems little more than an advertisment. Guest9999 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see no possible way in which this article could be considered an advertisement (the company is long gone) or POV violation. It is simply a neutral description of the company, its products, and history. The nominator is active in deletion nominations, so before nominating any business articles on those grounds I suggest some effort to become more familiar with them. Wikidemo 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Peel Engineering Company. This looks like a historically valid place, but seems better to add to the short Peel article since it is just the trading name of the Peel boats.Obina 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly merge with the parent company, which is an editing question. This is a descriptive article about a number of notable boats, not an advertisement for the manufacturer. Just look at it. DGG (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Obina, as this subsidiary is not notable in itself. --Gavin Collins 10:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Peel Engineering Company without prejudice to recreation if a sufficient material and sources can be found for its own article. West Marine Ltd. (not to be confused with a rather large marine company named "West Marine" out of the States) manufactured various lines of boats, cars, and other motorized things out of a single factory on the Isle of Man. That's probably enough to be notable if it really is distinct as a subsidiary and not just a shell corporation that is an alter ego for Peel Engineering. However, it closed many years ago so the sources, if there are any, are probably mostly offline in print and microfilm, not the kind of thing we can easily find with Google. If someone goes through the effort and wants to establish notability, let them. But that's too much to ask of us now, and as the material now stands it's more useful and encyclopedic for the two articles to be merged. Wikidemo 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page as from various people I got the impression, a lot was known about the car side of the company (which was the famous side) but not a lot of information is widley known about the rest of the company. The information on this page has been created from information found out from people, who worked at the company and advertisments. If this is deleted, you might as well remove most of wikipedia for example vast pages of Doctor Who or Doctor (Doctor Who) as things like this take up far more room and its not even real! jingo83 20:089, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No independent sources. Peel Engineering Company is open to the same criticism. Please add independent secondary sources that show that someone else has written about the company or its products. --SmokeyJoe 23:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think my point has been missed. There are only two places in the world where this you can find this information. One is here the other is to wonder around the Isle of Man like I have and find out from people who were worked there, as there is no books on the subject. And the other is here. I will not bother to recollect it from people so once its gone, its gone for good. jingo83 18:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The stub requires a complete rewrite but in relation to manufacturing on the Isle of Man, this company was significant. Mighty Antar 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Mighty Antar -- or merge the content per Wikidemo. (Some of the others' arguments are of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort.) Bearian 17:01, 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 Speedy deleted by User:RyanGerbil10. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer mainframe[edit]

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

Crystal ball - no google hits to show product even exists; prod removed without explanation NeilN 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as spam for a future product. --Dhartung | Talk 17:01, 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. -- Longhair\talk 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Harbour Public School[edit]

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

Article assets no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Might be worth a mention in the locality article. Twenty Years 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 15:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as the article asserts no notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although worth a mention in our article on Mosman, New South Wales. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lots of non-trivial mentions in secondary sources found in just two minutes of searching through Google. Easily meets WP:N. Have updated the article with the references. Assize 10:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than enough notability through the references added. --Stephen 1-800-STEVE 23:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the town or Delete, do not KEEP. Fails to assert notability. Vegaswikian 21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the requirement to assert notability in articles under WP:N has been removed. Articles are presumed notable if they have sufficient references in the article. Assize 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep after references added. JRG 01:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this relatively uncommon case, this particular primary school is in fact notable, as shown by the references.DGG (talk) 19:20, 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 keep. It's a better article now, though still a bit thin on sourcing. No consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belfegore[edit]

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

This is an article about a short lived gothic rock band, which, according to my Googling, shares the name of a slightly more notable metal band that was also active during the early eighties. This band was defunct before the days of Internet ezines, and, as such, I can find nothing close to a decent source about it. Delete, unless decent sources are found. J Milburn 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Ok, after looking a little closer, it would appear they are the same band. There is a brief entry at AMG, but I still don't think there are enough sources to establish notability. Even if it is kept, I think it will need a cleanup- what is said doesn't really seem to agree with the sources. J Milburn 14:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability has not been established via reliable sources. /Blaxthos 15:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I've tried to improved article. Difficult to find sources, but band seems to be notable enough. Possibly additional information on German and Spanish wikipedia pages. - Snigbrook 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has now been referenced satisfactorily. Both ZigZag and Sounds are certainly considered notable and non-trivial by Wikipedia and we have the band supporting U2 and an album on a major label. I'm therefore not sure where the breach of WP:Music is. A1octopus 12:45, 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 no consensus.

Closer's notes
Although if you count heads there's more people wanting deletion, many were "per X"; on the flipside, a number of detailed and policy-based arguments were made by people wanting the article kept, and they weren't adequately addressed in responses throughout this discussion. The argument countering "indiscriminate" - being Wikipedia notability - was not addressed sufficiently by throwing about Wikipedia:Listcruft, and claiming it is unmaintainable.

These two factors mean that, in reading this debate, I find that there is no consensus to delete the article. As GRBerry correctly notes, you are free to renominate this article if no-one fufills the faith shown by people wanting to keep the article ("If no one is going to do these things [a short indication of why each individual is notable (and) a citation to a reliable source indicating that the individual is an Ashkenazi Jew], categorization might be the right end result"), but please give ample time. However, for now, the people expressing opinions for this article to be kept have made a sufficient case that a quality list with references and clear bounds of notability should belong on Wikipedia and falls within our policies and guidelines. Daniel 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ashkenazi Jews[edit]

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

This list if completed would amount to a list of approximately 9,000,000 names - making it completely impractical. Should articles really be used to catagorise every person in the world by their religeous background? This could be a catagory but there is really just no need for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory and this articles and many others like it are incomplete (with no real possibility of completion), unneccessary and unencylopaedic. How do you even use an article like this - effectively it is just a giant trivia section so people can go "Oh, I didn't know that (he/she) was..." if people actually want to know the status of particular people they can easily check the individual articles. As I said I realise their are many other articles like this but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good arguement for inclusion. Guest9999 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For most lists of people, the presumed title includes "notable" -- this is an implied list of notable Ashkenazi Jews, not every Ashkenazi Jew who ever lived. The same goes for lists like List of University of Oxford people or List of people known by initials -- they only categorize already-notable people that meet those criteria. See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people. On the other hand, this list does not appear to be cited and therefore does need verification and cleanup. Dylan 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize & Delete - I'll be glad to do with AWB if the AFD community agrees. /Blaxthos 15:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nomination. Even if the list only includes notable Ashkenazi Jews, it would still be extremely long and unencyclopedic. This would be more appropriate as a category. — DIEGO talk 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dylan, as long as the list pertains to 'notables.' -RiverHockey 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory, and this is unmaintainable listcruft. Do we really need every intersection of nationality and religion as its own page? CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is an excellent category. Llajwa 19:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of Notable Ashkenazi Jews - This is potentially an excellent list which carries far more information than any mere category could hope to do Jcuk 20:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorize and Delete per Blaxthos. Majoreditor 02:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable is of course implied. The article is therefore not indiscriminate--and in practice is not, because it includes the ones included in WP as notable, The criteria is clear. In most cases the relevance is absolutely clear from the article, but i suppose some will need to be cited. That the list is long is hardly a reason for deleting it--if anything, it shows the notability. some other lists have been nominated as being short. if people want to establish a WP guideline that only medium sized lists are acceptable, let them propose it. To call something non-encyclopedic is meaningless unless one speecifies why, and , besides the irrelevant reasons I've just summarized, nobody has. DGG (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and for Wikipedia:Listcruft, as well as Overcategorization: non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference, Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Thank you, IZAK 02:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Listcruft is an essay saying that we should only have lists if we first have an article on the encyclopedic topic. Since we have Ashkenazi Jews, that essay either says nothing about this list, or says that we should have the list. Everything after listcruft is totally irrelevant. The first two points are for the guideline on Categories; this is a list, not a category. Even if it was categorized, they wouldn't apply because there is neither an intersection (Ashkenazi Jews is an ethnic group, not an intersection of an ethnic group with a religion) nor is there inclusion based on holding an opinion. Finally is being an Ashkenazi Jew is not something made up in school one day. GRBerry 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Listcruft refers to indiscriminate or trivial lists" -- see first sentence of Wikipedia:Listcruft -- and by all means add the names of a few famous Ashkenazi Jews to the body of the Ashkenazi Jews article, but for heaven's sake, how on Earth will anyone ever create a list of every last notable Ashkenazi Jew without trivializing the entire subject? It would be a very, very long and near-indiscriminate list, and it would be a self-defeating exercise, like trying to list all notable Germans, Frenchmen, Poles and Russians in a combined list of "notables" so that this is not a list or category of significance, it is a classification by rough ethncity, race and vague nationality. It is one thing to have an article about the notion of "Ashkenazi Jews" (just as there are articles about Georgian Jews and Yemenite Jews) but why go further than that? It's more of a concept than anything else, and even among the Jews, it is not used as a means of "listing" or "categorizing" them. Ashkenazi Jews are very much part of Judaism's concepts and history, since they were the ones who did not follow Maimonides' and Joseph Karo's rulings in the Shulkhan Arukh. It gets complicated and it's very abstract, and is certainly no basis for compling lists of such people, many of whom today do not fit the mould strictly. IZAK 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 02:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Better to keep these things at AFD than by overturning at DRV, as we've been doing lately.) It is unquestionable that the ethnic group Ashkenazi Jews is a notable group. Once that is established, the presumption is that the list of notable members of that group is of encyclopedia value, and should be broken out when it gets long, as is stated in Wikipedia:Listcruft. The list would be in far better shape if two things were added to it, first a short indication of why each individual is notable and second, a citation to a reliable source indicating that the individual is an Ashkenazi Jew. If no one is going to do these things, categorization might be the right end result - but getting there requires first asking people to expand appropriately. Community consensus is that WP:NOT#DIR is intended to cover phonebook style entries, not that we can't have a list of notable members of a group; the nominator misrepresents what the policy says. GRBerry 03:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more suitable as a category, if even that. --MPerel 06:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup a bit. Seems notable. Liveforever22 21:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK. --Shuki 12:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete list would be endless and almost impossible to source.Yahel Guhan 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This list could be hella long. There is no reason to characterize these individuals by their religious background. Pilotbob 03:44, 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 keep especially as the discussion progressed. Bearian 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langmaker[edit]

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

Borderline A7 but looks like another admin had already seen this and left it alone. Article doesn't demonstrate any notability for this website and lacks reliable sources. Content can therefore be considered original research Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-notable and lacking independent references, failing WP:WEB. Dylan 15:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. /Blaxthos 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments. --Evb-wiki 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, borderline notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Hi Can you help us with this debate by explaining why you think this site is borderline notable? Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. Keep - it does seem to be notable (e.g. [15]), but article needs improving. - Snigbrook 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment that's the same article as one of the links below, but there are others e.g. [16]. Snigbrook 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:WEB, no notability claimed in article. Probably should have been a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That probably should be a complete rewrite. The website provides what is arguably the most comprehensive listing and description of conlangs available. jonathon 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website is not merely original and pioneer in its field, but important as part of an online community.--Pedro Aguiar 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non notable website. I think the applicable criterion is CSD A7? Burntsauce 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sure it's a useful site for people who use it, but that doesn't make it notable. Crazysuit 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Langmaker is a central hub for conlanging recognized across all of the conlanging community. It's mentioned in the books Exploring Language Change by Ishtla Singh and Mari Jones and Waveforms Politics: Equilibrium Pattern Volume 4 by Gary Gibson, and is reviewed in the 2006 edition of Que's Official Internet Yellow Pages. The page is known to many Wikipedians here; as a matter of fact we frequently reference on Langmaker in conlang deletion debates, and the other people know instantly what we're talking about. How many times have we seen in a deletion debate on a non-notable conlang that the "only google hit is Langmaker.com" or "only ghits are langmaker.com and Wikipedia mirrors"? The LA Times article In Their Own Words -- Literally mentions it and its conlangs from `Ayvárith to Zyem. And as a final kicker, there was a Wikipedia article at Langmaker that was prodded and deleted, and this new one sprang up written by a different author. If two different people, neither of whom appear to be Jeffrey Henning, independently start Wikipedia articles on Langmaker.com, that says something about its notability. Wiwaxia 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course it's notable! Now I can do two things: either rephrase what was already said by Wiwaxia or just admit that I couldn't have put it better. I'll go for the latter solution, since I'm a bit in a hurry. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' unless proper sourcing is added to the article. As it stands it's notability is not verifiable from the article. Eluchil404 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons Wiwaxia gave. And I'm sick of Wikipedians extending the definition of "original research" to cover material taken from primary sources. Let's be honest here: nobody writes plot summaries from secondary sources. The synopses of the Harry Potter books in the Harry Potter articles (e.g. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) came from people reading the books and then writing the articles, not from people reading second-hand synopses of Cliff's Notes on Rowling's work and then writing the article. Granted, the analyses of the sociological significance of Harry Potter do come from secondary sources, but these articles still contain what a lot of people are calling OR. Do people write the Wikipedia articles on episodes of TV shows like The Simpsons by reading synopses of the episodes in independent, reliable sources and then writing the articles, or do they watch the shows themselves and then write them from memory? If the people at Wikipedia want to expand the definition of original research, we'll have to rework a lot of what we've allowed to stay here for years. Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While claims of OR are sumtimes thrown around too readily, I don't see anyone doing that here. Independent sources are required for notability which is generally viewed as a separate requirement. Thus if a topic has only primary sources it should be deleted, but an article that relies heavily on them can stand as long as there are also a few secondary sources extant. Eluchil404 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - AFAIK, it is one of the main hubs of the conlanging community. However sources are weak, and so its adherence to WP:WEB is weak, too. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball speedy delete. J Milburn 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xcal[edit]

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

this article is either a complete fictional article or some kind of personal vanity project about a 17 year old kid. Has no notability, no verifiability or anything else that'd make it suitable for Wikipedia of any kind. Only really edited by one single guy. MPJ-DK 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —MPJ-DK 14:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this... it's either a hoax or self-promotion of a pipe dream. /Blaxthos 15:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Non notble hoax article for some loser ForeverDEAD 15:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fastest Delete possible, for all the reasons above. Nikki311 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete its crap A7Yourname 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as blatant hoax. If we can get one more vote there will be grounds to WP:SNOW this AfD. I hope that someone will do that. The Hybrid T/C 18:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on wikipedia. I love the way the personal pronouns are capitalized, like it's the Bible. I love the rambling non-punctuated sentences, and the switch from "He" to "I" am and back from phrase to phrase. Kids, this is precisely why you should moderate your WWF intake. Speedy delete as absolutely ludicrously failing WP:BIO. bikeable (talk) 19:04, 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. There is a clear consensus that clubs of this level are not inherently notable (though some are for various reasons). Eluchil404 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Littleton F.C.[edit]

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

Non-notable English non-league football club. Level 10 has become the accepted view for notability of such clubs through numerous AFD's, and Littleton have never played at that level or higher. In addition, they seem to hold no other reason for notability - they are a local village team with no significant coverage in third party sources. fchd 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as lacking reliable sources establishing notability. /Blaxthos 15:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not notable (lack of coverage in WP:RS). — DIEGO talk 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Either a weak keep or delete all but Alveston, Mile Oak Rovers and West Midlands Police from this division. Peanut4 20:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the other teams in this division who have not played at a higher level, which I believe is everyone bar Alveston, Mile Oak, Northfield and WM Police. I'm baffled why all these articles were created last month in the first place..... ChrisTheDude 23:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've been created by a user who is systematically creating articles for all Step 7 teams. He/she has recently created all the Anglian Combination, Bedfordshire League, Brighton & Hove League and Cambridgeshire League Step 7 teams. I wouldn't be surprised if articles start appearing for Cheshire League teams next. - fchd 06:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other teams in the division (except those that have played at a higher level i.e. the four mentioned above plus Knowle and possibly Newhall Utd). - Snigbrook 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please view my comments on this here. I am the one who is responsible for creating articles on level 11 clubs because they are part of the National league system. It is my deepest desire to have ALL level 11 clubs being included into this project. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is time to include level 11 clubs as inherently notable because they are in the leagues which are part of the National League System. It is my vision to include ALL these clubs into this project. Moreover, this club has its own website and there is potential for this article to be expanded. I do not share the nominator's statement that level 11 clubs should be deleted from this project. Although there seems to be a lack of coverage in reliable sources, this club has its own website and I do not think that the information in that website is not reliable. Moreover, it must be noted that the information in this article is verified, which is an important policy of this project. Additionally WP:RS is a guideline and not a policy of this project. One must take note that these guidelines are not set in stone as well. It is my hope that in the future, consensus will change and ALL level 11 clubs will have their own articles as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; if you want to change the current guidelines please discuss it somewhere else, as this is the wrong place to do it. --Angelo 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Well, thanks for your advise. I have already started this discussion on this page. Please feel free to add in your thoughts about this discussion. It is my intention for ALL level 11 clubs to have their own articles. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Abstain I notice that the club has been running for over 100 years, and (from the official website) the club is attempting to put together material for a "history of" book. Interesting, if not enough to save this article. Paulbrock 15:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Yes, I strongly agree with you. Moreover, in the club website, it is stated that they will provide a comprehensive history of the club soon. Also, this club is within the scope of WikiProject Non-league football as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't believe that simply being very old gives the club notability. The village cricket club where my parents-in-law live has been running since 1885 but isn't even remotely notable..... ChrisTheDude 07:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, my point is to state that ALL level 11 clubs of the English football pyramid should be inherently notable. The reason? They belong to leagues which are part of the National league system. Moreover, the information on the article is verified which means that it is very, very unlikely to be inaccurate. Having a WikiProject on non-league football where step 7 (or level 11) clubs are being excluded from this project makes little sense. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having the axe fall between level 10 and level 11 sort of draws the line between those clubs which, on the whole, have coverage in multiple reliable sources, and those which don't. Individual cases on either side can of course stand or fall on their own merits. Your inability to find anything other than the club's official site to back up the verifiability of a single sentence stub speaks volumes. In addition, even this basic information in the article was inaccurate - it was saying that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire - before I corrected it. The presence or absence of a WikiProject, or its scope, is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Each article should stand or fall on its own merits. If you can establish the necessary coverage in WP:RS, please do so. Incidentally, I have recently discovered that the club had an earlier short period in the lower divisions of the Midland Combination, but in my opinion this article is still a long way from demonstrating notability. - fchd 11:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, correction. I stated that the club was based in Evesham. I did not state that the club played in a Littleton in Gloucestershire. It was IP user 84.71.192.229 who made that incorrect statement. Please check the history page. Anyway, let us put this behind and I urge you to add the additional information that you have discovered that the club had a short period in the lower divisions. At least, let us work together in finding ways to expand this article as well! --Siva1979Talk to me 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was you that had put them at the wrong Littleton. - fchd 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of discussions on what level of football is notable, the core notability requirement is non trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. These are sorely lacking so there is only one outcome, although I will reconsider if that changes. Nuttah68 18:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when guidelines are changed to include level 11 (they no doubt will be), recreate the article(s). To have created them beforehand as some sort of attempt at bringing pressure to bear in a campaign is folly. Ref (chew)(do) 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I don't believe that all level 11 clubs will ever (or should) be deemed "inherently" notable. This season there's been a level 11 match (The 61 v Totternhoe in the Spartan South Mids League Division 2) at which the paying attendance was 5 people - how on earth could we justify making ALL clubs at that level inherently notable when some of them pull in that sort of "crowd".....? ChrisTheDude 10:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify - my above comment about "when guidelines are changed to include level 11" does not mean that I endorse it - far from it. I am merely commenting on the natural and continual diversification and expansion of the encyclopedia, meaning that ever more boundaries will be pushed, until eventually that level is included. Thanks. Ref (chew)(do) 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also share the same vision. It is my belief that notability guidelines will be even more inclusive in the future and boundaries will be pushed as human knowledge and interests increase in substantial amount. But this is not the place to discuss about that now. --220.255.188.8 10:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Siva1979Talk to me 10:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Nuttah68. Oldelpaso 09:23, 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--JForget 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Blackwall[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:N. Completely unverifiable due to lack of references, no non-wikipedia hits in Google, Google scholar or Google books. Probably should be speedy-delete, but I wasn't sure. BelovedFreak 13:54, 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--JForget 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Roberts[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP of a NN author, autobiography Toddstreat1 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-notable and uncited. Dylan 15:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking reliable sources establishing notability. /Blaxthos 15:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added external sources, including the National Library of Australia website. However, if it is just vanity press, then DELETE. Seahamlass 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: If I'm reading the library links correctly, they're just saying that the book was published and cataloged. The other link is an advertisement from his publisher. I don't think either count as WP:Reliable Sources sources to assess WP:Notability. Toddstreat1 17:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zeus Publications claims that its model of "subsidy publishing" is not the same as vanity publishing, but it all looks pretty similar to me. The name is too common to search on, but the book gets ten Google hits, none of which offer significant coverage in independent sources. Catalogue entries which simply testify to the book's existence can't be called significant, publisher's blurb can't be called independent. See Wikipedia:Notability for more on notability guidelines. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Iain99, Zeus Publications is a vanity press (regardless of what it calls its business model) and thus the book doesn't provide any notability for its author. With respect to it being listed by the National Library of Australia -- I don't know how they do it in Australia, but my understanding is that in the U.S. and Canada, publishers are required to send two copies of every book published to a national library. (I could be wrong.) Anyway, I doubt it adds notability. Accounting4Taste 00:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Accounting4taste is right. Every publisher in Australia is required to send copies of the books that they publish to the National Library of Australia. Our article states "Australian copyright law requires that a copy of every book published in Australia be deposited with the National Library of Australia." The sources are catalogue items from the National Library and his publishers website. Google News Archives has no records for "Brandon Roberts" Zeus. [17]. Capitalistroadster 03:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 00:06, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mendozza[edit]

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

Non notable band. Google hits are unreliable or extremely trivial mentions (one track on a compilation album, appearance at a gig, or very minor stories that the band has got back together of questionable reliability anyway). They appear to be unsigned, and although the article claims they had a track on the Underworld: Evolution soundtrack, this is nothing on its own. Also, they are linked to from sludge metal, but until I cleared it about an hour ago, there were nearly as many redlinks as there are blue links, so that counts for nothing. J Milburn 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The 46 words of the article do not convince me that they are notable Neozoon 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One track on a film's OST does not a notable band make. A1octopus 01:36, 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 while WP:POV is not a reason for deletion, articles in this position should be tagged for cleanup. In this case the question of notability was raised and remains unaddressed, article is deleted without prejudice. I'd be happy to restore if notability is addressed. Gnangarra 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson T650[edit]

Sony Ericsson T650 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Most of this fails WP:POV. I doubt there is anything notable about this phone that would warrant its own article. ARendedWinter 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think POV in itself is a reason for deletion. It is a reason for cleanup. The notability concerns seem more relevant. Are there any precedents for specific mobile phone AfDs? Martijn Hoekstra 13:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator -- this product is not individually notable. /Blaxthos 15:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suitable topic, not POV. I'd like to see coverage of all handsets. Maybe not one per article. However, content needs to be supported by third party sources. Please add sources and improve. --SmokeyJoe 12:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No POV problems. Not less notable than others - and how many "notable" mobile phones are there, apart from Motorola DynaTAC? GregorB 20:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headbangers Ball Ireland[edit]

Headbangers Ball Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable radio show. The only third party sources thrown up by Google are trivial, and the article reads like an advert. J Milburn 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that the article was created by a single purpose account named Headbangers. J Milburn 12:56, 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 nuke from high orbit. —[[Animum | talk]] 16:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Online Communist Party[edit]

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

fails WP:N and WP:V No hits at all on a google test. Martijn Hoekstra 12:44, 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 Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Istanbul[edit]

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

Basicly Wikipedia is not a directory, this seems more like a catagory. If any Istanbul htoel that can verify its existance should be mentioned the page could possibly grow out of control. Guest9999 12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of hotels in Istanbul has been moved to Hotels in Istanbul.

  • Delete per WP:DIR. STORMTRACKER 94 12:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons it has been nominated --Amxitsa 12:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory, and if any of the hotels have articles (which doesn't seem likely), then turn it into a category. Right now, it's a list of apparently non-notable hotels. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I shrank the article to comprise 5 and 4 star hotels only. Then the article contains the notable ones, and of course having not a specific article does not prove the unnotability of a hotel. While there is no chance to create a category for the moment, I suggest to keep the page. Any comments welcome! --Chapultepec 13:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentInformation within an articles does not have to be notable (per WP:NN) only the topic of the article. I don't think that 4 and 5 star hotels have any more inherent notability than 3 and below - if anything removing the others just makes the article less complete as a list. [[Guest9999 14:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment Of course the stars do not necessarily determine the notability of a hotel. But it generally counts. I removed the 3 stars since I did not want the article to become solely a list as you also stated. So, let's wait and see. It is becoming more than a list. Thanks. --Chapultepec 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we are not a directory. /Blaxthos 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I moved the article to Hotels in Istanbul, just like Hotels in London. --Chapultepec 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#DIR Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like to remind you that this article is on the way to be reminiscent of the article Hotels in London rather than just a directory. I would much appreciate your considering this before you assess. Thanks. --Chapultepec 16:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: because WP is not a directory. For what its worth, I think that Hotels in London should be deleted as well. — DIEGO talk 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Believe me, the problem doesn't end with the articles Hotels in London and Hotels in Istanbul. If you enter hotel in the textbox and press search button, you can find numerous articles with the same situation within the search results. The problem is what we're gonna do with the articles containing such lists. I can think of the following:
  1. We can leave them as they are (my preference)
  2. We can remove the lists and keep the remaining articles
  3. We can delete them thoroughly
But this doesn't go only for the hotel lists which of course are not the only lists in Wikipedia. There are lots of articles containing bibliography, filmography or musical album lists. Take Tony Curtis, Jean Paul Sartre or The Rolling Stones discography for instance. Aren't they lists or directories? Or you can review List of playwrights which is exactly a directory.
I'm not an obstinate person, I have always paid attention to comply with the rules. What I try to find out is the precise limits of adding lists in the articles which seems to me very ambiguous for the moment. Thanks. --Chapultepec 17:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for what it's worth. Lists are far more informative than articles. Jcuk 20:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Certainly they are useful. But I feel the necessity of stating that the article Hotels in Istanbul is not a directory listing anymore. It has been a straight article containing a list, just like myriad articles in Wikipedia. So we should take this into consideration. --Chapultepec 23:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it now is much changed in both name and nature since I first nominated it. As editors have not just changed/improved the page but fundamentally changed it I feel that my original nomination is no longer appropriate. [[Guest9999 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment - Thank you. --Chapultepec 05:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the nomination is withdrawn. DGG (talk) 16:53, 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 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sludgecore[edit]

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

This has been tagged as needing a merge into sludge metal, however, it is completely unsourced. Although a few bands do seem to be widely considered as 'sludgecore', I can find no sources that actually talk about it as a genre. Google throws up unreliable sources, or minor bands being described as it. As such, I believe the article should be deleted, until reliable sources can be found. J Milburn 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. STORMTRACKER 94 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a topic i can claim to know anything about but a few searches around the internet show that it is a growing genre. A search of google news will show the term used in a number of reliable sources including CNN. Also listed on a number of music websites. The article does need to be cleaned up, expanded and referenced but i would oppose deletion.--Amxitsa 12:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the google news hits are trivial mentions in articles. For example, the word itself was used in a CNN movie review, but that was the only use of the word. It did have an article in the Dallas Morning News, but unfortunately you are required to pay $3 to see it and therefore is not allowed to be used as a source. So, it fails the notability guidelines for music through and through. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course you're allowed to use that as a source — it's a printed source. We're not restricted to what can be accessed for free on the web. Thomjakobsen 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. We can use book or newspaper sources, both of which you must buy (usually), so why not webpages you have to pay to access? Presuming someone is willing to pay to access it... J Milburn 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this appears to be a protologism (or at least a neologism). /Blaxthos 15:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this subject is notable enough to keep and improve. — DIEGO talk 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism not backed up by reliable references. Bands listed in article come from disparate genres like grunge and stoner metal. WesleyDodds 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These articles on sub-genres sub-sub-genres are out of control. I would say merge, but they shouldn't even be mentioned in the main article, unless they can be properly referenced.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am in agreement with Blaxthos. It appears to be an alternative term for sludge metal, intended to emphasise the genre's hardcore punk roots. ...Superfopp 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terms for new musical genres would have be used many times by major musical programmes/publications before they become unviersally accepted and therefore encyclopedic. This one has not had such widespread use yet. A1octopus 16:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to BASIC Program[edit]

How to BASIC Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sigh. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and there's already a perfectly good article on BASIC, but the prod was still removed. Shall we go through the motions for a bit? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOLjonathon 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sheesh. JJL 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. — DIEGO talk 17:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While, I'm not sure about the information itself, Wikipedia is certainly not the place for a how-to. If you're going to do that, then go to WikiHow. Koryu 22:02 21 October 2007
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wikipedia is not a how-to book... Bjewiki 23:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom jonathon 22:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person who created this needs to be introduced to Wikibooks. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep because: no reason given for deletion by nominator; no response to note on talkpage. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

London Law Review[edit]

London Law Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Finishing an incomplete nomination. As such, I abstain. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - anyone want to try and rescue this article? If the claims made in it are true then it probably meets WP:N and simply needs to be sourced. /Blaxthos 15:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks significant Johnbibby 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's what I thought - I didn't find anything wrong, just needs some sources. I tried leaving a note for the IP address (User talk:217.43.201.174) who listed this article on the AfD page, asking why he wanted it deleted, but no response yet. Speedy close this perhaps? - no reason for deletion from nominator. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:51, 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. Jbeach sup 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Koriakine[edit]

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

Biographical article on an internet personality (founder of a website, Wikimapia), which has sat without any references to independent sources for a year. COI problems, since the main contributors have been the subject himself and another wikipedian who is also an active member of Wikimapia. He has argued that as the founder of a large website A.K. is notable "by definition" (even "on a par with Jimmy Wales"), but requests for providing independent sources of biographical coverage in the media have gone unanswered. The only reference so far is to the FAQ page of A.K.'s own website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no independent coverage of him, as opposed to Wikimapia. If the only thing to be said about Koriakine is that he set up a website, this could be kept as a redirect to the Wikimapia article.--Michig 09:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO. /Blaxthos 11:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. STORMTRACKER 94 12:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimapia, as this seems his only claim to notability. --Amxitsa 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimapia. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I may be totally stupid in not knowing how notable Wikimapia is (is it?), but I can't help but notice that the Wikimapia page is basically unsourced too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. The founder of a website to which literally millions have contributed is notable. David Cannon 21:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... only if he gets talked about in the media. I really wonder how a long-time contributor and administrator can fail to grasp this simple wikipedia rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage in reliable sources. A redirect can be set editorially if necessary but I don't think it would be much use given his own very low notability compared with the website. Eluchil404 10:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily deleted by User:Neil. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Powershot Energy Drink[edit]

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

Unremarkable product Nunquam Dormio 08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft. J Milburn 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canines and their little past[edit]

Canines and their little past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The links are duplicated in the Canine disambiguation page 12Ghost12 07:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - resulting from page move vandalism. Marking as such. Leuko 07:45, 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. Sources still need to be improved. Bearian 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Humans[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS, discogs only lists 1 CD release. Leuko 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, highly notable members and collaborators, found some sources here and here. 96T 10:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, sources given are not reliable sources and do not assert notability. /Blaxthos 11:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly meets WP:MUSIC #6 (notable members), perhaps #7 as well. 96T 12:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not be misleading -- #6 recommends redirects for side projects and "early bands" and does not directly establish notability. #7 specifically (and all requirements in general) still require verification by reliable sources. /Blaxthos 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ten minutes of research gives me these results: Here is an Alan Licht interview dealing with Blue Project, with a well respected rock historian as interviewer. Here is another Alan Licht interview mentioning the band several times. Here is yet another, seems to be from a print magazine. They also have their own bio at All Music Guide (yes, I know "all" artists have entries there, but not all artists have bios). This AMG review states that The Blue Humans was an imortant influence on Sonic Youth. And non-notable bands don't get to be produced by Thurston Moore. This article needs sources alright, but it should definitely not be deleted. 96T 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. STORMTRACKER 94 12:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources, no assertion, no notability. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep did anyone check google. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The band is notable, and the artists that make up the band are more then notable and influential.Ridernyc 10:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Interview: Licht
  2. ^ Arthur Doyle
  3. ^ New York Times
  4. ^ Thurston Moore - Noise Rock - Experimental - Alternative/Punk - Music - www.real.com
  5. ^ Arthur Doyle Plus 4 - Alabama Feeling - Professor freddy's Jazz & Blues University - by freddydwight
  • Weak Delete NY Times article above is a bad link. The other sources prove that the individual people are notable (but this is not in doubt), but I still cannot see adequate evidence that this particular ensemble is notable enough for WP:Music. A1octopus 17:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no clear outcome, given the page-moves and other actions which go part of the way to addressing the nominators' concerns. If you think the newly-located article still should be discussed for deletion, feel free to renominate at your leisure. However, this debate yielded nothing close to consensus to delete due to the discussion being sidetracked and the 'boundaries' moving frequently. Daniel 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Florida Institute of Technology/College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Does not cite any notability and an indiscriminate list of information lacking any reason for being cited in an encyclopedia. There are no outside sources, everything is coming from the schools cite and the listing of departments is indiscrimate listing of info. Also breaks the rule on subpages, see #3 of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on...don't delete yet I'm working on it... lol give me some time. I'm only saving the page because Wikipedia keeps logging me out every time I finish a section and I click "Preview". I'm improving the structure of the Florida Institute of Technology page (WikiProject: Universities) by splitting the different pages off so that the main article does not overflow 32kb (It's already at 30kb). Please let me know if you still want to delete this page. Notability and some of the other kinks will be fixed tonight. Jameson L. Tai 07:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Moved to List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories. Hopefully this will resolve the AfD request. Instead of mentioning each and individual college per article, the new article now lists all of the colleges and labs for Florida Institute of Technology, thus solving the Notability issues. Jameson L. Tai 11:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete still should be deleted. JJL 14:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the former article (FIT COE) and its current form (a split of FIT#Colleges) are valid splits of a university article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to merge this into the main article and delete the page, but we should respect the hang-on request above. Let's see where this goes. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Weak keep due to the radical recent changes. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Your Horses...well I had to vary the responses a little bit... Anyways, I had a power outage today, therefore slowing down my progress (too bad... I lost three college sections that way, so I gotta start over). But my response is still Keep.
    • Please read the Academics section of Florida Institute of Technology. That section has been labeled a stub for at least a month (maybe a many more months than that...but I digress), while I'm trying to expand this section, I noticed that the main Florida Institute of Technology article was already approaching 30kb, (note the Wiki guideline about keeping articles under 32kb), so I decided to split the article into the College of Engineering article, hoping that by splitting into individual college pages, this displaced academics section wouldn't end with the same fate as the main article...filling to 32kb any time soon.
    • However, after the AfD was placed to the COE article, a suggestion was made to my Talk page to just continue modeling MIT's "List of MIT departments and laboratories" article to replace this COE article. This was why I decided to move out of the Florida Institute of Technology namespace and created this new article.
    • I hope everyone realizes that they are now reading a completely new article, and the page isn't just about Florida Tech's College of Engineering. It is now an article for every single college, its respective departments, and its respective facilities/laboratories.
    • It should no longer have Notability issues and it should no longer be in AfD status (in fact I was about to remove the AfD until I saw these comments.)
    • If you have any suggestions as to how to strengthen this new article so that it will survive this AfD, please send me a message on my talk page. (And those of you who feel there are NPOV issues... we'll deal with that on my talk page as well. There's no COI here...just to clarify things a little bit.)
  • Thanks in advance in your feedback and I hope this article survives. Meanwhile, I'll continue backtracking what I typed before I lost everything in that stupid power outage. Jameson L. Tai 20:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per above changes and reasoning. cheers.JJJ999 21:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Now? It's been over 48 hours since the last post, and the vote comes out to 2 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 2 deletes... I'll leave my vote out so it's "unbiased"... does it mean the article's staying up? The red AfD banner is an eyesore... hehe Jameson L. Tai 00:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually the AfD will stay up for five days, then a sysop will decide whether to delete or keep. Also, your vote counts, it is usually one of the most important since you are the main contributor of the article.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... ok then... Keep :-) haha I guess I do count then. Does that mean 3.5 vs 2? :D Jameson L. Tai 08:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to changes. Captain Infinity 22:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Note that the original deletion tag was on the page listed above, which is now a redirect to the current page. The editor that made this redirect then placed the original deletion tag on this new article for some reason. This debate is not for the new redirected article, but for the original article. The original article still should be deleted as it still breaks the rule on subpages, see #3 of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses and it is highly unlikely that someone would write in that exact title so the redirect is not needed.
    Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important Note This VfD should possibly be readdressed for simply the redirect page, and the main article probably doesn't need a VfD anymore. I have moved the VfD back to its original article and suggested that a VfD be added if it is felt the new article still has issues. Carson 12:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge. Since there are two users who appear to be actively working out the details that will save me the work of trying to do the merge myself, right? I'm okay with that... — Scientizzle 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of British Columbia by time in office[edit]

List of premiers of British Columbia by time in office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Seems redundant to List of premiers of British Columbia - rather than outright deletion, I'd suggest merging the two together at one title or the other (probably List of premiers of British Columbia) and making the other a redirect. No sense in having two articles that basically list the same information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I do realize I could have simply placed a {{mergeto}} tag on the article, but I'd prefer this see some active discussion as I did consider nominating this for simple deletion. Merge tags tend to be ignored for a long while anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge but work with Arctic Gnome. Next time use the merge tag. If you are not opposed after a reasonable time, do the merge. --SmokeyJoe 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's a bit redundant, but I separated the two because I'm trying to standardize the formats of the Canadian first ministers lists, and some of them have more extra information than others. If we were to merge all of the "lists of Xs by Y" into a big table for each of them, ones like List of Prime Ministers of Canada would get way too big; it has sixteen such lists! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not nominating the Prime Minister lists, this discussion is about the "Premiers of British Columbia" lists. Some topics, PM's of Canada probably included, could use multiple lists on the same topic due to their higher level of notability and breadth of information. This I do not believe is included in that category. It's a sub-national government level and wouldn't overwhelm readers if the information were to be combined into one list. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to be merging the articles, can I at least ask that you do so in a way that keeps the BC list in a consistent format with the other completed premier lists? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, keep. -- RG2 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1925 French Championships (tennis)[edit]

1925 French Championships (tennis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely redundant to 1925 French Championships - Men's Singles and 1925 French Championships - Women's Singles. We have one of these articles for every year, and each one is identical bar the names. In each case we have articles on the competition, the "list of champions of the 19xx French Championships" articles all contain exactly four names, of which two are champions and two are not. And the way it's worded you actually have to click through to work out whether "defeated" means "A defeated B" or A (defeated) vs. B. A list which can only have two members, or four if you include the defeated non-champion, is not really much of a list. Why do we need three articles on each year's championship? Cruftbane 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jeu, set, et match pour Delete--Victor falk 21:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, and consider merging the men's/women's articles into this single article. As for the current situation, when looking at the men's results, for example, it is good to have a non-category link where the women's results can also be found. Neier 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. STORMTRACKER 94 12:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MaxSem 06:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - redundant to already existing articles. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have expanded the article to include information on the doubles champions and that it was the first French Championship open to non French players. I am sure more information can be added to the article such as juniors which mean that the article is not redundant. Davewild 07:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if there is little info on all 3 aspects in earlier years, with all the info in more recent years, it is worth it for consistency Mbisanz 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But I'm going to move "articles" to "topics." -- RG2 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ayyavazhi-related articles[edit]

List of Ayyavazhi-related articles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article lists other Wikipedia articles. This is what categories are for, and in fact there is already an Ayyavazhi category. Sfacets 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom Puchiko (talk • contribs • email) 07:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and consider notifiying the creator about categories. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a great way to get rid of information. Nominate a category at CFD because a list already exists, then nominate the list at AFD because "this is what categories are for". Brilliant! --Kbdank71 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply - there is already a [[Category:Ayyavazhi]] category regrouping the articles. Sfacets 14:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I know then why this List (article) and all these are not nominated for deletion and only the Ayyavazhi list is for? - PaulRaj 17:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because no one has nominated them. You will notice in your second example that very few of the articles in question attempt to regroup all the articles. Please also refer to the guidelines Sfacets 17:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then OK. But pls wait until those huge 'lists' be deleted and next go with Ayyavazhi which carries just more than 150 articles.

See all religions have similar lists for their own,

  1. List of Buddhist topics
  2. List of Hinduism-related articles
  3. List of Eastern Christianity-related topics
  4. List of Egyptian mythology topics
  5. List of Islamic and Muslim related topics
  6. List of Sikhism-related topics

- PaulRaj 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My Ass[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kiss My Ass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RG2 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giichi Okumura[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BIO. The only English source for his existence is a post on the World's Oldest People forum (see Oldest people for the link) and of the few Ghits, most, if not all, are mirrors and none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in List of living supercentenarians and Oldest people. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present at the list of living supercentenarians and oldest people. Cheers, CP 17:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Jiroemon Kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sukesaburo Nakanishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment These articles are no less informative than Augusto Moreira de Oliveira's is or Sukesaburo Nakanishi's was. Also for Okumura, he is about to turn 111, which is notable, since when Emiliano Mercado died, only Tomoji Tanabe was that age. Captain celery 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]

Comment de Oliveira has the potential for expansion. You're right about Nakanishi though, so I've added him to the list as well, as he does not meet the criteria either. Cheers, CP 19:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nakanishi was ranked higher (2nd-oldest in the world instead of 7th or lower) and there was an independent article in Japanese. Thus I favor keeping Nakanishi but not the other two.Ryoung122 08:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, notability seems questionable. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's sort of sad that, at the time of Nakanishi's death, there were no media coverage other than a short obit in Japanese. He should stay, however, but the others should go based on the above sentence. If new information on either should emerge the articles should be recreated. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i do not see how these can be supported in the absence of some kind of sourcing. There may be a RS for his age, but tracing it through the various articles & web sites seems indirect. Perhaps if it can be directly sourced here the article can stand. DGG (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be more information about Mr Moreira, but it hasn't been added in a year. Captain celery 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it is unfair to 'batch' all these together, as each case has varying levels of weakness or acceptance. I would suggest deleting the Kimura and Okumura articles on the basis of lack of additional information. It wouldn't be difficult to expand the Moreira article, however, and at least I think we need the Nakanishi article, if not the others.Ryoung122 01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been thinking about the argument of high notability and low information v low notability and high information. For instance there is a very comprehensive article on Marie-Rose Mueller. But she is not notable as either someone born in France, living in America, or as a woman. Whereas Giichi Okumura is only a month younger than her, and the second oldest man in Japan, seventh worldwide. I'm not suggesting Mueller's article be deleted, since unlike the Italian woman's and the Japanese men's, it obviously required a lot of work. I know it's a ridiculous slippery slope argument, but I could say that there's a lot of information available about me, so I could have an article, even though my longevity is not notable (a century younger than Jeanne Calment). The point I'm making is that, in future, both notability and information should be required for an article to be created. Captain celery 21:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 05:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS and WP:N /198.70.11.153 12:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no notability and not really any room for expansion. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator Delete Since this was relisted, I thought I'd quickly add my comments again. All the dissenting non-votes seem to be focused on the fact that one or the other was "ranked" higher or lower than the others. The major point, however, that all three of these individuals lack reliable, in-depth sources (Sukesaburo Nakanishi's obit is now a dead link) has not been addressed and still stands. Cheers, CP 15:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I were to say 'keep' it would be a losing battle now. But NASCAR Fan, I think I showed that Okumura, if not Kimura, is notable. A 111 year old man certainly is. And Nakanishi was the second oldest in the world so he was anyway. Captain celery 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Legend of Dragoon locations[edit]

List of The Legend of Dragoon locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like fancruft/listcruft. We don't need this much information on locations for a video game. Wizardman 05:06, 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 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimdesk[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria A7 for not claiming notability. It is an open source software product. The speedy tag was on for some considerable time with no admin either removing it or deleting the article, so the issue of the notability is evidently not a simple one. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Assertion of notability is very weak, but it at least does get mentioned in one of the third-party references. May need to relist this. --Sigma 7 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as some of the external links are WP:RS. Relist if necessary. Bearian 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 04:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like spam - and there's no footnotes so there's no way to tell what they are referencing. I'll tag it in case the article gets kept. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the concept of cloud computing might be a notable/referenced concept, this software in-and-of itself is not. The "references" (read: external links) may be reliable but they do not directly deal with the subject of this article (the software Zimdesk). /Blaxthos 16:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by AA. J Milburn 11:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreshBargains.net[edit]

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

Company founded just last month with no current independent sources to demonstrate notability. Only 4 Google hits for the name of the website and whilst Google is far from the final word, this is exceptionally low, especially for a web based company. Additionally, the article was created by User:Freshbargains so we can presume a confict of interest which whilst not a reason for deletion, is suggestive of astroturfing. CIreland 04:07, 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 without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. If this is a truly notable conlang, then one or more of the peer-reviewed linguistics journals should have articles about it, which would obviously satisfy WP:V & WP:RS. — Caknuck 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kēlen[edit]

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

At the DRV,, consensus was to relist. Previous AfD was closed early. Neutral nomination; needs reliable sources for verification to keep. Chick Bowen 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show evidence of notability. Judging from the article in its current state, the previous deletion verdict looks entirely right to me. Terraxos 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:NFT may be a bit too harsh, but the arguments in the first AFD are right. The only source is the creator's own website (WP:SPS). I don't have anything against conlanging or this particular language, so if better sources prove notability, i'll support keeping. Please keep in mind that wikis (such as LangMaker) or mailing lists are not acceptable sources. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It won't be speedy deleted. It's already been through a deletion review once. The reason why we give these things five days is so that better sources might emerge--obviously you're right about the category of sources that would be appropriate. Chick Bowen 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Repeating the relevant parts of my list for DR:
  • a) Kēlen was developed over years;
  • b) Kēlen is well-respected and known within the conlanging community;
  • c) Kēlen was featured in a specific talk at the 2nd Language Creation Conference - see [18] - establishing notability among other things.
Also, I would say that I believe that erstwhile claims for "independent sources" to document something are misguided when applied to conlangs, which are in the overwhelming number of cases self-documented by the author. One can argue notability, perhaps, but to do so requires knowledge of the field, and for that, mailing lists and other discussion fora used by those within it *are* relevant and appropriate sources. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conlanging is more art than science, so an artificial language is more similar to a painting or a song than it is similar to a scientific. A report on physics or linguistics on a small conference may be a valid source and a valid subject for Wikipedia. But just as you can't write about every painting in every exhibition ever, you can't write about every report on a conlanging conference. Gathering a few people at a university and calling it a conference doesn't automatically make every report that is made there notable. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I would agree. But, the field of conlanging is much smaller than that of painting. While not every painting in every gallery in the world is notable, a conlang presented at conference is, simply by virtue of the ratio of frequency / prominence of visibility to availability of venue. Please note though that I was making two arguments - the first, that WP:RS is inapplicable; the second, that WP:Notability is at least partially addressed by its presentation at a conference. There are certainly other metrics of notability - for example, one could look at how frequently it is discussed on conlang related fora. However, I would believe that any reasonable metric for establishing notability would have to acknowledge that the field is a niche one, so one must turn to the conlanging community to evaluate this (in addition, of course, to historical sources, which may be more relevant for some conlangs). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cyclical argument. If only a conlanger can assert the notability of a conlang, then it is non notable by definition. Wikipedia is for subjects which are notable to the general public. For conlangs which are only notable inside the conlanging community there's LangMaker.
When this language becomes notable outside the conlanging community, then can it have its own article. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To use an example you are going to hate, if a Star Trek fan writes an alien language and shows it off at a Star Trek convention, an article about it won't pass an AFD. CitiCat ♫ 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we're not discussing what is notable within Star Trek fandom, but what is notable within the field of conlanging. And Kēlen is - among other things, by being one of the more unusual languages in having no verbs. As for requiring that everything on WP be "notable to the general public", I find that bordering on the absurd; the general public doesn't know or care a whit about nearly all of academics, art, and science. Would you then argue by the same token that we should delete, say, articles about some medical condition known only within the field of neurology, art in the classism period, etc? They are hardly notable to the general public, but they still pass the guidelines as in e.g. Template:Importance Scheme, which clearly accepts the idea that articles can be notable only within their field, yet still worthy of inclusion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very little known to the general public about Physics or Linguistics, but those two disciplines are inherently relevant to all people, even if they never actually stidy it.
Art is different from Physics: A work of art that is only known to a small community has little relevance for the general public.
The whole field of conlanging is much less notable than painting or music, and even for those two there are severe notability guidelines. Several significant cases of conlangs such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Klingon or Quenya (and some others) crossed over from the small community of their users to the general public. I admit that because of this discussion i read a little about Kēlen and it may pass as an interesting exercise in extremely theoretical generative linguistics; still, only when it is presented at a linguistic conference, it can appear on Wikipedia. Conlanging is not linguistics. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It *was* presented at a linguistics conference. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was presented at a conlanging conference. Having berkeley.edu in the URL doesn't make the website scientific. The relation between linguistics and conlanging is roughly similar to the relation between medicine and chiropractic. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that linguistics, which is of interest to linguistic students (fans?) inherently carries more weight with Wikipedia than Star Trek, which is of interest to Star Trek fans. It's not, even though you may feel the subject is more "important". (By the way, I'm just picking Star Trek at random, the same applies to fans of any other subject) Either way, you need to show how the subject is of interest to anyone outside the specific community. CitiCat ♫ 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that at all; I made no comment on the relative merit of linguistics vs Trekkie/er fandom. I just said that your analogy is inapplicable, because you were giving a notability criterion that crossed categories. Just as it would be inappropriate to say that only parts of fandom that are "notable" are those that are covered at a linguistics conference, it's inappropriate to say that something is notable linguistically by virtue of presented as part of a fandom. Remember, I am arguing that notability should be considered from the perspective of a particular subject or domain - whether that be fandom, Chomskian linguistics, post-Renaissance art, or conlanging. More broadly, I oppose any policy to delete things that are at least somewhat notable to some interesting culture or area of knowledge on the grounds that it is not 'notable' to "the general public". As I said, the general public is ignorant of the vast majority of human knowledge. To have that as one's standard of what ought not be covered here would make calling this an 'encyclopedia' a laughable claim. Note, I *am* agreeing with WP:NFT - just saying that one should determine notability *within* a subject. I believe WP:1.0 agrees. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think interest within a community is important, however, I think it would require a higher standard than if it were of interest to people in general. In other words, it would have to be well known to a substantial part of that community, which would give it the possibility of "crossing over". I think it's worth noting that this is not even listed on List of constructed languages. Let's say this, it was discussed at a conference - is there any continuing interest? Is anyone outside of the creator studying or contributing to this on an ongoing basis (and maybe publishing something?). Here's my final summary, and then hopefully I'll shut up - someone created a language, and some people interested in language creation discussed it. And that was it. CitiCat ♫ 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It *is* well known to a majority of the community, I would say. At the least it has strong name recognition as 'the verbless language'. I don't know whether others are contributing to it - TTBOMK Sylvia does not wish to share that prerogative. I do not agree with your implied premise that a language may only be notable if it is either being used by or created by a large number of people. You would not apply the same standard to other forms of art. However, you seem to agree with my premise that, if well-known within the community, it would count as notable... and I believe that's the case. Are we then in agreement on those grounds? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will say that is correct, but a high percentage would have to be aware of it, to the extent that they would know the major details (like you say - they would know it's the "verbless language") without having to look it up. Not just having had heard of it once or twice. (I'm not saying either case is true - I don't know. Just that if you could make a good case for the former I would vote keep). CitiCat ♫ 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD were extended, that could be done. Given my position within the community, I feel that it would create bias for *me* to post about this; however, you could easily yourself go to CONLANG or ZBB and ask who knows what about Kēlen. I am confident that most people know it and what it is. (I should point out that I oppose WP:N on the grounds discussed well in WP:NNOT, so I think this is entirely superfluous when WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR are satisfied, as they clearly are.) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete here - no notability outside of its respective community. Once it gets an article in a notable (i.e. has an article here) newspaper, magazine, or website, then bring it back. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, IIRC, Langmaker (which according to you is notable, by virtue of having an article here - interesting circularity) has an article about it. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Langmaker is a website devote to the hobby (forgive me if hobby is an incorrect term). Wikipedia's notability requirements say "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Because a conference or website is notable does not at all mean that everything discussed there is notable. CitiCat ♫ 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nascar Fan 24. Insufficient relevant references outside its own circle. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stifle and Nascarfan24. /Blaxthos 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable enough for the kind of entity it is; extensive discussion on conlang fora by conlangers other than the creator, and the fact that she was requested by the conference organizers to give a talk on it (she didn't volunteer for it), is evidence of its notability. (This was discussed on the article's talk page, but that seems to be gone -- was it lost when the article was deleted and then undeleted?) --Jim Henry 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge - there's no convincing assertion of notability, let alone demonstration of it. But as an exercise in constructing a language without verbs, referenceable to conference paper, it seems like a useful addition to the Constructed language article. Llajwa 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete I do not read any newspapers or magazines, thus there are no so notable ones. You should keep all or delete all. I do not read wikis either so maybe you delete yourself also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.12.50 (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sole claim to notability, the Berkeley conference, was sponsored by the ASUC and was mostly attended by students and avocational linguists, so it's certainly not the kind of major scholarly conference that bestows notability on every single presentation. Maybe it does bestow notability on Conlang in general, but that's not under discussion here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was also sponsored by the UC Berkeley Cognitive Science department. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't move it closer to notability. I presented papers to such conferences many times as a grad student. None of them are anywhere near notable. As sole support for notability this is extremely meager. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except it's not the sole support. See above discussion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see nothing there that would go beyond unsupported assertions. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are conlangs and conlangs, people. Thousands of them! Many of them are merely sketches: a few words, a bit of grammar, one or two sample texts... These are often presented on fora, shortly discussed and later abandoned by their creators and forgotten by the rest. It happens regularly that someone starts a language, and in a very early stage makes a wikipedia article about it. Obviously, we can't have that kind of thing here. Not only because there should at least be a minumum barrier of notability, but also from the conlangers' point of view: if there are two thousands conlangs represented here, nobody can tell anymore which of them are valuable and which of them ain't. For that kind of articles there are other places: Langmaker.com, the Conlang Wiki, etc.
    Kēlen, however, is an entirely different case. The language has been around for years, is extremely well-elaborated, and both the language itself and its setting are pretty unique. As Sai said, the language is very well-known and well-esteemed in the Conlang community. It can safely be said that Kēlen belongs to the Top-10 of best-known Internet-based conlangs.
    Of course, conlanging is an art rather than a science, and therefore shouldn't be treated as if it were a science. It is a small art, I should add: whereas in every street you can probably find somebody who has written poetry or painted something, you will have to look very hard for somebody who has created a language. It's not a way to become famous. Interest from outside the conlanging community is rather limited. Let's face it: a major newspaper won't easily write about the subject, simply because it won't attract readers. But the fact that only few people are interested in the subject surely doesn't make it less notable! Conlanging, as an art, IS notable, but since it can't be compared with writing poetry or creating paintings, we can't just use the same kind of standards for judging it. In the case of conlanging, a small article in a small newspaper, a lecture about it on a conference or something similar is about all the attention a conlanger can get.
    Or is notability just a matter of counting people interested in a subject? —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    a small article in a small newspaper [...] is about all the attention a conlanger can get - Wikipedia is not the place for seeking attention.
    has been around for years - it doesn't make it notable.
    is extremely well-elaborated - it doesn't make it notable.
    both the language itself and its setting are pretty unique - it doesn't make it notable.
    very well-known and well-esteemed in the Conlang community - Avoid weasel words and give me proof. 500-something google hits on conlang mailing lists and a presentation at a "conference" is not that much of a proof. And even if it is notable inside the community, it is still a problem: You see, currently this article is listed in the same category with Klingon languages and Middle-earth languages, which are infinitely more notable. That is very powerful promotion! If Kēlen and Klingon appear at the same category, many readers may deduce that their notability is comparable, which - as i hope you will agree - is not the case.
    In fact, i may reconsider my strict opinions about this issue if you can come up with a thought-out compromise proposal to put very notable languages (such as Klingon) and small artistic languages (such as Kēlen) in different categories. By "thought-out" i mean that this new category won't become a conlangers' playground and a Langmaker clone.
    Unfortunately, this will be very hard. There was already an attempt to do something like this and it failed: Wikipedia:Conlangs. Until someone successfully revives it, i strongly oppose adding to Wikipeda conlangs which didn't gain notability outside their little communities. You may look at some of my half-baked ideas on the issue here: User:Amire80/Notability (languages and writing systems). If you can improve it, be bold and go for it. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for you reply! I'm of course aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not the place for seeking attention. However, I disagree with you if you state that a Wikipedia article is a means to get attention. Is the article Star Wars a means to get attention for the movies? Of course not! So why would an article about a more obscure subject suddenly mean promotion? In any case, I'd be happy to give you proof, but the truth of the matter is that I don't have the time to delve deeply into all kinds of archives.
      Personally, I'm not much of a deletionist. WP:NOTPAPER etc. I also firmly believe that obscure content isn't harmful. What really matters is that the text of an article is true and can be verified as such. I'm surely not saying we should allow here articles about virtually any conlang. When lack of notability of obvious, there shouldn't be an article. More than once, I've "voted" delete in an AfD regarding a conlang. However, in doubtful cases, I say we give an article the benefit of the doubt and keep it.
      On the other hand, I can see your point regarding distinguishing more notable from less notable languages. Why not? In part, this is already done on the List of constructed languages, at least where the auxlangs are concerned. An easy way of doing such a thing on a list is working with boldface. The problem is only, how do we distinguish major from minor conlangs? Why is Idiom Neutral listed as a major auxlang and Lingua Franca Nova as a minor?
      The problem with fictional languages is indeed that there are a lot of them, and they are very, very different. We can subdivided them according to their source: let's say categories for Fictional Languages from Books, Fictional Languages from Movies, Internet-based Fictional Languages, etc. That would at least party solve the issue. But then, Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin would end up with minor languages that appear in some book, even though they consist of five words and one sentence only. Still, I think such a solution MIGHT do the trick to some extent.
      A special category for Internet-based language still shouldn't become a playground, just like no other part of Wikipedia should.
      Regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, differentially listing more and less notable languages does not require deleting all the less notable ones. (And Kēlen isn't a less notable one.) This can be solved by well-maintained list articles, or subcategories sorted by notability. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in the same category - this category neither says or implies anything about notability, just whether the language is an artistic language or not. There are other, better ways to list & categorize conlangs by notability - e.g. Category:Constructed language articles by importance (which is only pending a fix of {{WP conlangs}} to implement 'importance'). You are arguing not that the language should not have a Wikipedia article, but that it (and others) should be presented in an appropriate light, or that there should be a comprehensive list of conlangs by notability. Those latter proposals I would fully support. Just deleting everything out of hand, however, is a destructive and inefficient way to achieve this goal.
outside their little communities - as in, they have to gain notability based on the say-so of people who are not interested in the subject of created languages? Kinda condescending, no?
And speaking of WP:CONLANG, I *am* reviving it. I'm in process of refurbing WP:CL - note the new {{WP conlangs}} tagging - so if that's your objection, please just hang on. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about Star Wars is not a means to get attention to the movies, because they have quite enough attention. But Kēlen could use some more attention, and a Wikipedia article is a pretty good way to get it.
What really matters is that the text of an article is true and can be verified as such - That's not enough - it must be true, verifiable and notable.
Kinda condescending, no? - Oh, goodness, i learned a new English word. If by "condescending" you mean "patronizing", then no, not at all. I love music and i love indie music and i play in an indie band myself. If you Google the name of our singer, you'll get 500+ results. So well, our band is known inside its little community, but i don't mean to write an article about it until we at least release an album or become really notable in the local press, 'cuz Google is rather meaningless. Quite simply i admit that we don't pass any of the tests at WP:BAND and i don't see it as condescending. Unfortunately, there's no such detailed guideline for conlangs yet. If you are reviving WP:CONLANG, it will do good, but it is unlikely that you'll reach consensus if your proposal will admit languages such as Kēlen into Wikipedia, because it contradicts the current general notability guidelines. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Within Conlangs it is notable because of its foundational principles. More citations for its usage would be useful. jonathon 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My cat exists, too. (Sorry, i just had to.) --Amir E. Aharoni 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Assumably, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on his cat. shoy (words words) 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So write one. It exists; thus, it's a legitimate subject for an article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. shoy (words words) 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NNOT and WP:NOTPAPER. If you can create an article about your cat that satisfies WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, please do. :) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack notability, sources, fails to state its importance from an outside view. Mbisanz 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to state something is an argument for editing, not deletion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A failure to state the article's importance in the article may also mean that there is no verifiable source that indicates teh articles notability. In the case of an article lacking notability, I still stand by deletion. And given the several days of this debate and the continued lack of verified notability. Mbisanz 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, not sourced properly Pilotbob 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, very little context. An interesting concept if it got significant coverage in RSes, but not yet. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An arguably big fish in an indisputably small pool. No sources asserting notability that are not fishy. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:08, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Gallart[edit]

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

non-notable person; no sources. Most of the article is actually an essay on the music business. Prods removed by author. Brianyoumans 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources are provided. Terraxos 04:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion, no sources, no notability. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 13:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sources provided, and none found in googling -- Whpq 14:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above (COI noted). /Blaxthos 16:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spartan War[edit]

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

Article about apparently non-notable online game, probably created for advertising purposes. Most of the article is little more than in-game statistics, which violates Wikipedia's policy on writing about computer games. The overall article probably violates WP:NOT in more than one area. Terraxos 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian vela[edit]

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

Non-notable (possibly non-existent) person. A Google search yields zero results. — Wenli (reply here) 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Terraxos 04:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears he exists, but does not appear he is notable. Try it without the middle name. Horrorshowj 08:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Tiddly-Tom 11:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO /Blaxthos 16:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of Ghits without the middle name. [19]. Bearian 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was able to find this, this and this bio on CD Baby. Someone who's a native speaker would do much better looking for interviews in the Latino press with alt spellings. Benjiboi 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO for Creative Professionals. --Sc straker 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Crosby[edit]

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

notability based on his tennis far inadequate Mayumashu 03:23, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savana Sathre[edit]

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

Contested prod, non notable football/soccer player. In the original prod tag, I stated that there were "Only 5 Google hits, two of which are from Wikipedia", but on closer inspection of the results, there are only three distinct sites: one is Wikipedia, the third is a Wikipedia mirror, and the second appears to be either an indiscriminate list of Swedish footballers, or an indiscriminate list of Swedish people. The tag was removed by the article's creator, with the edit summary "well-known footballer in sweden", but I can't seem to find any proof of this. Dreaded Walrus t c 02:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, fails WP:V let alone WP:BIO for athletes (if he plays for Frösö IF at all, it matters not because it's just a rural island). The list you found him on isn't "Swedish footballers", it seems to be a list of kids who entered Easter (Påsk) paintings in a contest[20]. --Dhartung | Talk 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The club does appear to be a real, amateur club. It is in the Swedish Division 4, the 6th level of the Swedish football league system, having been relegated from the Mellersta Norrland last season, from finishing 11th out of 12. Even Football Manager 2008, which has a database of hundreds of thousands of footballers, doesn't have him in the database. Regardless, I agree that this is unverifiable as well as NN. Oh! I just noticed I forgot to notify the article's creator. I'll do that now. :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 03:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 03:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable person. He may possibly be verifiable, but he's certainly not 'well-known' in any sense. Terraxos 04:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. - fchd 08:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no appearances in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when the player fulfils the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. robwingfield «T•C» 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Terraxos. /Blaxthos 16:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being Swedish I can assure you that this (10-yo?) lad is not well known, and I have never even heard of Frösö IF and am confident that neither the club or the league it plays in are professional. Sebisthlm 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD A7 (no assertion of notability). --Angelo 09:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. GiantSnowman 10:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all the above. TGreenburgPR 21:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - proud parent vanity article - should have been speedy. Ref (chew)(do) 00:49, 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 Gnangarra 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Cole[edit]

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

It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested some months ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Santiago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Baird --Magioladitis 02:27, 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 both articles. Eluchil404 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Downstar[edit]

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

Unpublished book by non-notable author. Also nominating:

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

which is about a character in this book. Articles by the same editor about the author and another character were A7 speedied and linkspam in the Drow article was reverted. Prod tags were removed without explanation by an anon IP whose only contributions have been to the same set of articles. --Finngall talk 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no reliable sources that establish notability — Ksero 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Even though there are no reliable sources that establish notability, it is a self-published series by Tarek Elmani and should not be deleted for that reason alone. It still exists and some people may look it up. It is not meant to be used for advertising, but used just as Drizzt, or R. A. Salvatore. They are either characters from a book or the person creating those characters and/or books The Dark Elf Trilogy Legacy of the Drow — LnknXer 07:11, 21 October 2007
  • Delete all - WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:N, WP:SPAM. /Blaxthos 16:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when the one advocate for the articles admits there are no reliable sources and the work is self-published, that shows lack of notability. Edward321 04:13, 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. -- RG2 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Baird[edit]

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

It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested some months ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Santiago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustus Cole -- Magioladitis 02:21, 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. -- RG2 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human flu[edit]

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

Seems to me that this page is redundant -- all content is covered by Influenza or by other pages in Category:Influenza. Yeah, I know that Google returns 84 gazillion hits for a search of "human flu", but I'll bet that most of those are CDC or NIH which is (IMO) awful for consistent clarity. —G716 <T·C> 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to influenza for now. I think there's a potential article here given that only a subset of influenza strains affect humans, but to have an article we need some discussion of that point and referencing of identified ones. Some of that is in influenza now but there no overwhelming reason it has to be there specifically. --Dhartung | Talk 05:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used on these pages to mean the subset of Orthomyxoviridae that create influenza in humans and are endemic in humans. Do you really want to replace "human flu" with "the subset of Orthomyxoviridae that create influenza in humans and are endemic in humans" everywhere it occurs? Also it serves to contrast with horse flu, pig flu, dog flu, cat flu, and bird flu. Each type of flu, named after what it is endemic in, has unique aspects to it. The flu article is very human-centric, but it is not the human flu article. Perhaps much of flu should be merged into this article? WAS 4.250 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now fleshed out the article. Mostly using stuff I wrote on five other articles. Nothing from flu. WAS 4.250 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nice work Tiddly-Tom 08:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a good article - notable per Ghits, fixed per WP:HEY, and well-sourced. Bearian 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - flu articles are a complete mess, but a seperate page for Human flu, to contrast with otehr species-specific flu is a good idea. It will allow the main Influenza page to be less homo-centric--ZayZayEM 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe rename it "Human Influenza" and do a redirect at Human Flu. Mbisanz 20:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative encyclopedic article. But maybe not rename. Ever heard anyone say "oh hell, I think I'm getting the influenza!"? Moriori 22:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Portal (video game). —Verrai 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GlaDOS[edit]

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

Character is from single, short game, all in-universe, needs to not have a separate page MASEM 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by me, as a copyvio of this page. I hate to see an article about a possibly notable band (especially a metal band) go down, so if someone wants to recreate as a non copyvio with reliable sources, be my guest. J Milburn 12:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance to reason[edit]

Last chance to reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hirolovesswords 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a borderline case, but as the article stands now, I don't see them as notable. — Ksero 03:28, 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, without prejudice against recreation in an improved form. I thought long and hard about relisting this debate to get a clearer result. In the end, however, I felt that the overall weight of the arguments given so far leans just enough on the side of deletion for me to close it as such. Please contact me (or another admin) if you'd like the current content userfied. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerosol-PFC[edit]

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

This strange page suffers from two major problems; it is written by someone who doesn't speak much English, and from what I can make out, is an attempt to promote a (very) new treatment for preemies with lung problems. So it has a certain original research flavor, a spam flavor (mmm, spam) and of course, it has notability problems. I will put a line or two about it in Infant respiratory distress syndrome where it belongs, so please don't vote for merge. SolidPlaid 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Those references look pretty solid, as long as the journals they are published in are okay. If the references check out, then this seems like a legitimate article to me, though as you say it's partially written as an advert and probably has COI-issues as well. — Ksero 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Obviously needs a major rewrite, but judging from the references provided, appears to be a valid topic for an article. Terraxos 03:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as WP:COPYVIO. The first few grafs are taken from http://www.aerosol-pfc.de/4597/12002.html and I presume the remainder come directly from the cited papers. Maybe this could be an article, but not with somebody else's text. So tagged. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is a note on the talk explaining that the text has been released under GFDL so it is not a copyvio. It may still be deleted through AFD though. James086Talk | Email 08:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merged info noted by nominator is sufficient. /Blaxthos 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - it does seem like a borderline case, if the copyvio is not an issue. The papers look entirely legit, but since the main contributor is a coauthor on the cited papers, it's clearly borderline spam. Merging seems like a fair compromise. Llajwa 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main reason for bringing to AfD is that it is not notable. It works on piglets, but it does not seem to have been tested on humans and approved for human use. Scientific results are a dime a dozen. I believe that the author is trying to promote this result on Wikipedia. SolidPlaid 01:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Until it gets much wider attention form others I dont even think its worth the suggested merge, but thats up to the people who want to edit there. DGG (talk) 04:40, 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RG2 (talk • contribs)

Hadi pakzad[edit]

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

I should probably speedy this but there seems too much assertion of notability in the article to do so. The first page of 50 G-hits didn't have much in the way of WP:RS but there were about 850 hits total. It doesn't help that the only seemingly legit source in the article (the interview) appears to be in Farsi (not sure?) which I'm totally at sea with. Pigman 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough sources sited. A Persian friend of mine (who knows Persian music) has not heard of him. If he reads the interview, and tells me what it is about, I might change my opinion. Until then, I'm voting for a delete. TGreenburgPR 01:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria as it stands. Eluchil404 10:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that i have cancer i am whole[edit]

Now that i have cancer i am whole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayyour[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, article is original research. The references for this article consist entirely of links to Bible verses in various languages, which do nothing to establish the notability of the name "Ghayyour." The article states that the word is a translation of the words jealous and zealot into Urdu, Persian and Arabic. That very well may be, but this still does not establish its notability as a word for an English language article. A Google search [23] for the word turns up many links to discussion/guestbook posts by the author of this article (Rana Ghayyour Ahmed) but nothing about any notable people who share the name. Besides, "Ghayyur" appears from this search to be the more common spelling. There are Wikipedia articles about certain names (Such as Chen (surname)), but there is no evidence that this name is notable enough to have its own article. At present, Wikipedia has no articles about anyone named by the more common Ghayyur variant [24], which would indicate that it is not a common enough name to have its own article. The only articles about Ghayyour are this one, and another one about a non-notable person (See this AfD), both authored by the same editor, User:Ghayyour. Nick Graves 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless better sources are found. — Ksero 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, a common name is a sufficiently notable topic for an article, but not this one - the lack of incoming links and relevant external ones shows a lack of notability. Since it happens to be the name of the article's creator, I'm guessing this is a vanity article. Terraxos 03:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable. This article also deleted under WP:CSD twice before.--NAHID 07:14, 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 Snow Delete. Hoax + MySpace = not too cool. the_undertow talk 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Church of beertology[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable church. John254 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete hoax ForeverDEAD 00:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable. I just Googled it and it appears to be just another stupid MySpace thing. I have nothing against people putting any nonsense they like on MySpace but why do they think that it is worthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia?--DanielRigal 00:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Encyclopedia????? When has Wikipedia ever been considered a serious encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.80.192 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime We Touch Tour[edit]

Everytime We Touch Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced article about a concert tour - is this concert tour notable? Carlossuarez46 00:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single-country tour with only ten dates doesn't sound notable to me. No sources are given to show notability enough to justify an article separate from the article for the group or the album. Nick Graves 01:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per above. No notability established; no sourcing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belfast Fashion Week[edit]

Belfast Fashion Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Perhaps an advert. But I'm fairly sure this event is non-notable. Pigman 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete--JForget 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling in The Simpsons[edit]

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

It survived an afd a couple months ago and it was pretty much only the result of a trainwreck group of noms. It's pure 100% listcruft, with no sources whatsoever. It clearly fails the notability guidelines as no reason as to why The Simpsons traveling to a certain place is notable. Scorpion0422 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Watch the first time episode simpson people come and somehow try and bend the rules so this can be kept ForeverDEAD 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I voted keep in that AFD, so you really should avoid generalising all Simpsons fans as fanboys. -- Scorpion0422 02:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. No evidence is given as to how a cartoon family traveling places is notable in the real world. This sort of thing is appropriate for a fansite, not Wikipedia. Nick Graves 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an interesting page but not right for wikipedia. I am sure that this could exist on some fan site but not here. Fails WP:NOT#INFO meshach 02:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - this is a pointless list. I'm not sure how it even passed AfD the first time... Terraxos 03:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yourname 04:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. JPG-GR 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As original research. I doubt there are reliable sources that discuss places the family travel to. Spellcast 06:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total listcruf, absolutely no reason to have this in an encyclopedia Ctjf83 07:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just list cruft, barely anything interesting. Gran2 07:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cruft of the most useless material. It is also stated that it is a theme... travel is not a theme of the Simpsons! It is a method which the producers use to show things a fictional family cannot do in their own fictional town. No notability at all. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 08:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The episodes themselves give enough information and total listcruft. Martin B 09:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For the same reason as Nick Graves has given. Leaderofearth 09:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hopeless listcruft Will (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Listcruft. --Maitch 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:N and I generally don't see the point of the list. It could be considered an indiscriminate collection of information. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 15:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Rufous-crowned Sparrow 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trombonator. --Metropolitan90 17:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Majoreditor 02:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggest WP:SNOW - as I said the last time, "There is no real-world notability for the topic of 'places the Simpsons have travelled.' Yes, the Simpsons are iconic and we love them so, but that doesn't that every. single. detail. of them requires an article." Otto4711 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the thing, The Simpsons traveling to various places actually IS quite notable, and most of the big "travel episodes" generated a lot of headlines and controversy in the nation where the family visited. For example, the episode "The Bart Wants What It Wants" generated headlines because the last act is spent in Canada. Other episodes like "Blame it on Lisa" were quite controversial and inspired many future jokes. If somebody were willing to get the sources, there COULD be a good page about the topic, but this page is just pure cruft. -- Scorpion0422 17:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft, and not even sourced listcruft at that Bjewiki 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete. Notable as an element of popular culture. Verifiable from broadcast records. No need to delete. Ekotekk 17:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem like a necessary article at all. ✗iℎi✗(talk) 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a waste of photons. Captain Infinity —Preceding comment was added at 22:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. -- RG2 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Santiago[edit]

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

It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested a year ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted.Magioladitis 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Ghayyour Ahmed[edit]

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

Subject is non-notable. Article asserts notability as having appeared as a legal commentator on several news shows, and having appeared on a reality TV show that got cancelled after two weeks. The only evidence offered for notability is a link to the subject's personal web page (which does not mention any TV appearances), and a bogus link to the subject's supposed IMDb page (which is actually just the subject's personal site again--IMDb does not have an article for this person [25]). A Google search [26] showed plenty of online discussion/guestbook posts by the subject, but nothing to indicate notability. An article about the reality TV show on which subject supposedly appeared does not mention him. Two previous articles on this subject were deleted [27] per CSD A7. The creator of the article has the same name as subject--they seem likely to be the same person. Nick Graves 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see no reliable sources for the article in its current form. — Ksero 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless reliable evidence can be provided of his involvement with these TV shows. Otherwise, he's just an ordinary lawyer and not notable. Terraxos 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom.--NAHID 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not appear to meet the encyclopedia's notability guidelines. MorrisRob 07:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom SGGH speak! 09:26, 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 as this hoax doesn't have a snowball's chance. the_undertow talk 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shiznit metal[edit]

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

Hoax or non-notable. Neutralitytalk 00:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax article. It even states its barely played on radio making it not notable at all. Also the articles name is-Shiz-nit- ForeverDEAD 00:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax article. Article has previously been tagged for speedy delete but tag was removed. - Snigbrook 01:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel C. King[edit]

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


Wait on Deletion I added a citation from a third-party website, plus I added quotes about Daniel King from other ministers who have articles on Wikipedia. Is that enough to save this article from deletion or should I look for more citations?

Delete no 3rd party sources for this evangelist. Claims of authoring best-selling books saved this from speedy, but doing a little searching on Amazon, none of these books are there, except for "The Power of the Seed" which was written by someone else and ranks down below 3,000,000 in sales at Amazon. [28]. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non natble preacher thingy wahtever its called and most likely achivemnts overglorified ForeverDEAD 00:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that these books are "best-sellers" or even notable. No evidence of notability for the author/evangelist. Third-party sources would be needed to do that. Nick Graves 01:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless third party sources can be found; I removed the speedy tag as there were claims of notability and I thought it only right that the creator be given a reasonable chance to verify them; however, this doesn't seem to be happening. The name is too common for searching to be straightforward, but from what I've done I ca't see much sign of reliable sources. [29] [30] Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self published best seller would have gotten some press if accurate. 0 listed books on Amazon as noted. No reliable sources found. Horrorshowj 08:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing looks significant here. His website doesn't track his progress to his goal. If he did reach it, then he might be notable.jonathon 00:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still fails WP:BIO jonathon 02:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Khalid A. Sethi.[edit]

Dr Khalid A. Sethi. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An assertion of notability has been made, but I could not find any reliable sources to back up those claims. I can't find any biographical details (besides the listing of what he does, where he works, etc.) on Google. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:53, 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 keep. Kubigula (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (Jin album)[edit]

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

future album that presents no sources Will (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 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, bainer (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable and likely to occur future event by a notable band. If not, redirect. THE KING 00:01, 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 Delete--JForget 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shipwreck'd[edit]

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

future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Where are the reliable third party publications about this subject? I see NO SOURCES presented. Burntsauce 17:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bainer (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information is not sourced. Neozoon 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Majoreditor 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The debut album was going to be self titled, now it is untitled, yet the article is titled Shipwreck'd. This is why policy requires reliable sources and the absence of such is why this is a delete. Nuttah68 18:42, 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 — Caknuck 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Atrocity Exhibition... Exhibit B[edit]

The Atrocity Exhibition... Exhibit B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It says on their official website that they plan this album... also, why would there be an Exhibit A if there isn't at least Exhibit B? Dan 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It also says on their official website that they have already recorded four songs to Exhibit B, the follow-up of Exhibit A. There is no reason to delete this article. Jillord 02:35, 18 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, bainer (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my view this future project does not establish Notability as expected to be included in Wiki Neozoon 23:01, 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. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll

The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies)[edit]

The E.N.D. (The Energy Never Dies) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, WP:CRYSTAL includes albums as well. I have listed many singles/albums for deletion on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL. As you know, if an article breaches WP:CRYSTAL, then it fails WP:MUSIC — *Hippi ippi 05:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve and Keep A quick google finds some sources. Although it might not be notable, all of their other albums are, and the fact that there exists a "future albums" template suggests that this thing is not out of place on wp. Back to my point though, this article simply needs some improvement (i.e. add some sources), and keeping. Guinness 14:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bainer (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable release by a notable band. It has been confirmed by a reliable source. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:The-G-Unit-Boss. Press coverage for the album is already beginning (see here, here, here and here, though none of those have enough to say to merit mention in the article.) I'm all for not assuming notability in egregious cases, but given this band's track record I think there's little doubt that there will be plenty of press coverage, whether it's a hit or goes down in flames. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 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, the artist isn't notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Rock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Rock 2. NawlinWiki 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Burning Book[edit]

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

future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 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, bainer (talk) 10:48, 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 redirect to band's page without prejudice for recreation once release is imminent JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll

(R)evolution[edit]

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

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sources are added. Future != Crystal. DCEdwards1966 18:46, 12 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, bainer (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tells of upcoming album from notable band. →EdGl 18:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (per WP:Crystal) unless at least one reference from a notable source is added to the article before the end of this AfD to back up the claim that this album is genuinely forthcoming. A1octopus 12:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but redirect. The band has confirmed the nascent existence of this album at its official blog, but there are only 10 google hits on the combined terms, and nothing else seems anything close to official. The band announced that more information would be released on the album on July 17th, but have said nothing further. This lends itself to the conclusion that this particular album by this band is not notable per WP:MUSIC, which indicates that "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage" and that "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article, space permitting". In this particular case, I don't know that a merger of information is necessary, since the album doesn't yet exist and a separate article will likely be appropriate if it does, but the redirect seems appropriate since the band has announced it, however casually. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 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. WjBscribe 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R.U.D.E. Awakening[edit]

R.U.D.E. Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bainer (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-album at this point. JJL 14:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJL & nominator. /Blaxthos 16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL does require sourcing for future events. There's no sourcing offered to verify the existence of this album for either group. The group purportedly releasing the album apparently did not meet WP:MUSIC, as its article was deleted as n-n on September 30th. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 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 redirected to Byzantine (band) nothing to merge as ablum details already in Byzantine (band) article, providing album meets notability requirements redirect can be removed and article expanded. Gnangarra 06:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblivion Beckons[edit]

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

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The exact date of the album's release is on the page now, both singles have already been released on both the band's MySpace page and on satellite radio. 71.124.58.244 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bainer (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability (we don't just assume notability), and we're not a crystal ball. /Blaxthos 16:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't exclude albums. --Brewcrewer 18:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I went through the 127 distinct hits Google offered me and found a few MTV references supporting the dates (I've added those to the article), so the verifiability portion of WP:Crystal seems no longer to apply. The band is notable, hence I'm with W.marsh that if the album itself is not judged notable stand-alone, the article should be at least redirected and probably merged, at least in sourced portion. I'm a bit iffy on the question of whether or not the album is currently notable enough for a stand-alone. The heavy metal world has an amazingly well-organized group of blogs, but reliable sources are lacking. The release is notable enough that MTV included a few words from the band's guitarist in one of its articles, but coverage is hardly substantial. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 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. CitiCat ♫ 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Night (album)[edit]

Music of the Night (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 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, bainer (talk) 10:51, 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. CitiCat ♫ 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savoir Faire (album)[edit]

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

future album that presents no sources Will (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mention albums... but it does specifically allow for inclusion of notable and likely to occur future events. Nominator gives no reason to suspect these albums won't be released so, at most, they should be redirected to the notable band releasing the album, not deleted. Redirection doesn't require AFD. --W.marsh 18:29, 12 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, bainer (talk) 10:51, 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 by User:Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81(C) 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Institute of Technology/Student Organizations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Florida Institute of Technology/Student Organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is no longer necessary after the infobox creation on Florida Institute of Technology#Student Organizations. It displays the same information in the same categories. Therefore this article is now obsolete.

Author was myself... so it should be a problem with the original author. Jameson L. Tai 12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G7, Author request. I've tagged it with {{db-author}}. Kesac 14:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author self-AfD'ed to get his file deleted, instead of {{db-author}}'ing. Deleted. Anthony Appleyard 15:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was (Merge and) redirect. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the AFD was not visited by many editors, there is a clear consensus that (in my view) is also a correct consensus. Looking at the coverage of the proposed mergeto article, it's very hard to see a good case for Caucasian Albanians as well as Caucasian Albania. Any information related to the topic will be added to the existing article.

Caucasian Albanians[edit]

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

It have been suggested in Talk:Caucasian_Albanians#more_info_reqd that this article should be redirecte to Caucasian Albania because it doesn't provide any "new information" besides that article. I don't agree with this reasoning, so I decided to put this article on afd and hear the third party view. Please read that discussion and give your opinion, thanks.--Pejman47 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Caucasian Albania#Ancient population of Caucasian Albania Martijn Hoekstra 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Pavel Vozenilek 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, and expand - The Caucasus Albanians, more commonly known as Arranis up until the 20th century, did exist as a people. Note that Caucasus Albanian is the latin term for Arranis, the term Arranis produces much more hits. Sources have been presented, I will post them here again:
References to the language:
Al-Muqaddasi wrote in 985:
В Армении говорят по-армянски, а в Арране по-аррански; когда они говорят по-персидски, то их можно понимать, а их персидский язык кое в чем напоминает хурасанский. [31]
In Armenia they speak Armenian, and in Arran Arranian; when they speak Persian, they could be understood, and their Persian somewhat resembles Khorasani.
Ibn-Hawqal wrote in 978:
Что касается до языка жителей Адербейджана и большинства жителей Армении, то это персидский и арабский, но мало кто говорит по-арабски, а, кроме того, говорящие по-персидски не понимают по-арабски. Чисто по-арабски говорят купцы, владельцы поместий, а для многих групп населения в окраинах Армении и прилежащих стран существуют другие языки, как армянский — для жителей Дабиля и области его, а жители Берда'а говорят по-аррански. [32]
Too long to translate, the relevant line is: people of Barda speak Arranian.
Al-Istakhri wrote in 930:
Язык в Адербейджане, Армении и Арране персидский и арабский, исключая области города Дабиля: вокруг него говорят по-армянски: в стране Берда'а язык арранский. [33]
In Aderbeijan, Armenia and Arran they speak Persian and Arabic, except for the area around the city of Dabil: they speak Armenian around that city, and in the country of Barda people speak Arranian.
From the Western scholar Swietochowski:
The Turkic speakering Muslims of Russian held Azerbaijan, commonly known as Shirvanis and sometimes by the medieval name of Arranis... (page 10, Russia and Azerbaijan: A Borderland in Transition)

This article, as written now, specifies only the ancient history of these people, and it does not address the these people after they were Turkified.Hajji Piruz 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Caucasian Albania. The article provides no info that is not already contained in the article about Caucasian Albania. Grandmaster 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Caucasian Albania until that article needs to be split. There is no point having a separate article if it doesnt expand on what is on the main article. Nobody except Hajji Piruz has tried to present new information, and frankly, it is usually fringe and sourced insufficiently to allow appropriate review. John Vandenberg 07:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotels in London[edit]

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

This article is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. :) Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article contains a list, but it ain't solely a directory. --Chapultepec 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination — DIEGO talk 17:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There clearly is an article to be written about the history of hotels in London and much of the article is a good start. Any shortcomings in the present article – I'm not that keen on the section "List Of Five Star Hotels In London" – can be addressed by editing, but not deletion. Nunquam Dormio 17:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem doesn't end with the articles such as Hotels in London or Hotels in Istanbul. If you enter hotel in the textbox and press search button, you can find numerous articles with the same situation within the search results. The problem is what we're gonna do with the articles containing such lists. I can think of the following:
  1. We can leave them as they are (my preference)
  2. We can remove the lists and keep the remaining articles
  3. We can delete them thoroughly
But the hotel lists are not the only lists in Wikipedia. There are lots of articles containing bibliography, filmography or musical album lists. Take Tony Curtis, Jean Paul Sartre or The Rolling Stones discography for instance. Aren't they lists or directories? Or you can review List of playwrights which is exactly a directory. --Chapultepec 18:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if more sources can be found about the general concept of hotels in London rather than individual London hotels and the article is then reformatted around that information. If said information cannot be found during the debate then Delete. [[Guest9999 18:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment - Would you please explain the general concept of hotels in more detail? Shall we give information without citing their names? Additionally, I'm still not certain which lists are allowed and which are not in Wikipedia. --Chapultepec 19:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I'm not really certain about what lists are allowed either. I think that there is a significant difference between what is set out in guidelines and policies and reality, although differring interpretations of the guidelines and policies might mean this is not the case. WP:LIST may be useful to you. [[Guest9999 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Comment - That's what I try to say. Of course I cannot be sure but to my estimate, at least one fifth of Wikipedia articles contain a list or lists, short or long, which are generally very useful. But keeping the list of an article and removing the list of another one would be a double standard. --Chapultepec 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nom. Keep. Delete list of 5 star hotels. Its a directory.Operating 11:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment how does this list of notable hotels, which link internally only, make it a directory? Its a selected list of 5 star hotels in a city noted for just such hotels. It has a place in the article and is not defined as a directory under the interpretation i understand. Thundernlightning 15:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It's just an embedded list of most notable hotels rather than a directory, just like tens of thousands of others. With this point of view, we should apply the same to all the other articles :) --Chapultepec 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment what? Thundernlightning 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - What I mean is, according to the above-mentioned point of view, we should remove the lists of all the articles in a similar situation. Of course I was not serious, I just wanted to point out that Operating's suggestion was not much reasonable. --Chapultepec 22:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Majoreditor 02:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Pilotbob 02:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC

)

  • Keep - one of the worlds major cities with one of the highest densities of 5 star hotels in the world. Few cities can claim the centuries of history surrounding its accommodation than London going back to the coaching inns. The list in question as noted is just one part of an article that sets out the history of hotels in this city. The list itself contains some of the most notable hotels internationally such as the Ritz and the Savoy. Indeed some of these hotels set first across the globe for things such as the first all en-suite hotel (goring). To compare it with the hotels in istanbul article is like comparing apples and oranges because they are both round. Its not just ANOTHER city page. Thundernlightning 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Certainly the city is one of the major centers with a high density of hotels in the world, and the article is very informative as well. But we shouldn't turn it into a matter of privilege, this is not the case.
As for the deletion reason "as per nom". I think we should add a more detailed explanation as to why we should delete the article. Because, to my mind, the nomination is also a bit problematic since the article is in fact not a directory, but a straight article containing a list just like thousands of others. --Chapultepec 12:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article is not a list or directory, though it contains a list of notable hotels as a small part of the article. If one objected to lists, that would be an editing question only--embedded lists are allowed in WP. Lists are allowed unless the fail the criteria by being indiscriminate --which means being unselective, and including all the notable and non-notable members of a large category--which is certainly not the case here, or unless the have no definable criteria for inclusion--in this case being an hotel in london is clear enough, and if the subject is notable--which, frankly is clear enough also, or at least i do not see a single argument against it--london hotels have been the subject of hundreds of books and probably thousands of newspaper and magazine articles. DGG (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article is informative and does not consist of lists. The whole premise of nominating this article for deletion seemes flawed. 212.126.156.53 11:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While the article does provide some useful content, the directory does not belong on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment. I suggest that the directory be removed, and the article be renamed to History of Hotels in London or something similar unless disallowed by the manual of style. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry but I do not agree. Firstly, this is an embedded list rather than a directory, just like in tens of thousands of other articles. Secondly, if only one or several of the 5 star hotels were mentioned in the article, then we could say that it was an advertisement, which is precisely not the case for the moment. If you meant that the mentioning of the hotels in the article is a general advertisement, then I could say that all the lists of filmographies, bibliographies, musical albums etc in myriad articles are also advertisements. So far as I know these embedded lists are allowed in WP and I could not find anything against it in WP specifications. Thanks. --Chapultepec 07:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is not a directory imho. It has no contact details, it does not link out to the hotels. It has a place in the article as London is known for its high density of 5 star hotels, a large number of which themselves pass the notability test. Therefore it cannot be right to suggest renaming the article simply to make the list less relevant. May i also point out that even if the article covered only historic hotels many hotels from that list would still be relevant. Thundernlightning 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i see the Istanbul Hotels list nomination was withdrawn and the list embedded in a broader article. On that basis how can the London section be up for deletion? The London notability of both the list and the hotels history is a magnitude greater than that now kept article. Thundernlightning 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Certainly, the Istanbul Hotels article should be a precedent. Anyway, here also the argument was demoted to the removal of the embedded list or not. For me the removal of the mentioned list is completely unnecessary and I'm gonna discuss the matter till the end. But after all, despite all the counterarguments, if the result will be the removal of the embedded list, I will apply the same to the other article and seek another solution. --Chapultepec 14:06, 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 keep, no consensus to delete. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll

List of jazz standards (according to composer)[edit]

List of jazz standards (according to composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obvious original research. No sources are given and the list appears to be an arbitrary list of a few well known jazz tunes. Also what exactly is that title supposed to be? According to what composer? S.dedalus 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. --S.dedalus 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's worth noting that AfD discussion of List of musical works in unusual time signatures pretty much establishes the a precedent that a list being unfinished (or unfinishable) and possibly subjective isn't a sufficient reason for deletion. A list like this can be acknowledged as perpetually incomplete and somewhat subjective and still be a worthwhile resource. That all said (again), I'm remaining neutral on this vote. 09:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torc2 (talk • contribs)
    • Question. Did that AfD establish a precedent, or just make a mistake? -- Mikeblas 10:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This information belongs on the respective artists pages and few others. this should not be here Carter | Talk to me 10:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a large difference between a factual list, which time signatures clearly fall in, and an opinionated one. If you're going to make the later, you need some basis of WHY they are on the list -- look at List of important operas, and the HUGE amount of sourcing for why they are all there. Look at the talk page(/archives) too, as there's a lot of discussion about how to get such, etc. Most of these lists being put for deletion probably could have sources to back things up, and the case of THIS page I'd say it's worthwhile to keep, as an offshoot from the main Jazz standard page. But it really REALLY needs some care put into it because, like the others, it seems so small and worthless at the moment. (BTW: This logic can be made to most of these 'list of' [though not the atonal one, that's just silly], things being nominated, but they would not only need tons of sourcing, but a rename to including some word like 'important'). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs sources but the subject is notable. There are whole books written on defining the standard compositions that make up the jazz repertoire (I have placed a small list on the article's talk page). dissolvetalk 17:21, 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. Eluchil404 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hagiology Publishing[edit]

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

Non-notable minor sports publishing company that has (by my count) published only six books in the space of a decade. Article reads little more than a catalogue advertising their published books than any kind of information on what makes them so notable or important. Fails to meet WP:CORP by not being covered in depth by secondary sources - even the references in the article only mention the publisher's name in passing. Qwghlm 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. Qwghlm 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... Large organisations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favouring larger organizations. It is notable to people in Southampton. The authors and publisher are one-and-the-same, and all references (including ones from national newspapers) refer to them and their works - which by definition of being referred to - have attracted notice. Dan K 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term notable on wikipedia has a much more narrow definition then you are applying. Please see our guidelines for how to determine if something passes our notability tests or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took that quote direct from WP:CORP. Dan K 06:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... and omitted a sentence while you did so: Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. - something which has not been demonstrated in the case of this article. I am not denying that all small organisations are non-notable, my point is that this particular small organisation isn't notable. Qwghlm 09:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Removed indent) I omitted the sentence that was a list, the vast majority if which is irrelevant to this debate. I think for athletics we can safely read sport. The references indicate that the efforts of Hagiology (who both write and publish the books) have been commended in national media for their work, most notably In That Number. Ignoring the fact that these publications are well known by Southampton fans, plaudits from national media surely justify notability. See for yourself (taken from references):

  • A must for Southampton fans, obviously, but worthy of consideration by any serious football historian (Tom Dart and Richard Whitehead, The Times).
  • the most lavish and capacious club history imaginable. (Frank Keating, The Guardian).
  • Of course, it is a must-have for Southampton fans, but it is also a significant work of football reference in its own right… IN THAT NUMBER sets the yardstick by which every other club history will now be judged (John May, BBC Sport Online).

That to me suggests that their efforts are certainly notable. Their work have surpassed being notable to Southampton fans, but of being of interest to the wider footballing community. Dan K 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But these are just press reviews of the books themselves, where the publisher is incidental. If the books had been published by a different company such as SportsBooks, then in all likelihood they would have been of the same quality - if there is any citable evidence to the contrary I have yet to see it. None of the above mention the company by name and in the article currently, there is not a single citation of a secondary source where the publishing company itself is the subject of detailed discussion - what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made. All we have to go on at the moment is inference. Qwghlm 11:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "what it's about, it's history, what makes it notable, what contribution it has made" is its books? Seeing as the article already says the premise behind HP, who started it and works it has done, be it briefly, a lot of what you say is already covered. As I've been trying (rather unsuccesfully it would appear) to hammer home is that the publishers and the people who have written/researched the books are by-and-large the same people. HP is the umbrella for all their efforts. Would you rather five articles of just three or four pars about each book, or one which rather sensibly ties them all together? Dan K 11:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Qwghlm 19:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dan K has shown the "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics..." --Brewcrewer 06:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references given refer to books issued by the publisher rather than the publisher itself. Some of them do not mention Hagiology Publishing at all, and for those that do the mention is incidental. I do not think these incidental mentions constitute multiple, non-trivial coverage. Oldelpaso 08:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In this case the publisher is a specialised group, publishing a series of what appear to be fairly notable books around a common theme--one that many people think important. they describe themselves as a publishing collective, not a publisher. I think this is one of the exceptional cases where the publisher is notable. The guidelines are called guidelines because they are only guides, and are intended to be flexible--in order to cover just such situations as this. We do the interpreting. DGG (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have been away for a few days so am coming rather late to this discussion. As the originator of the article, I have a natural tendency to want to keep it, but must confess to wavering esp. in view of Qwghlm's comments. On reflection, however, I am swayed more by DGG's comments and consider that the subject matter is sufficiently notable and the external references do provide sufficient independent sources. Daemonic Kangaroo 08:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_21&oldid=1116721527"