Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

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 Userfy with no mainspace redirect — Caknuck 01:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Killius[edit]

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

Unable to find any real notability here. Most Google hits are credits or trivial references. Article created by Killius himself. Crazysuit 23:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. When I nominated it for speedy deletion, I couldn't find an assertion of notability or quality sources in the article, and a gsearch didn't come up with much more. Nothing much has changed since then.--Fabrictramp 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Fairly clear example of a user page being created in the mainspace by mistake. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Userfy Obvious vanity page of the user who created it.jonathon 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above do not userfy. This reads like a resume, and posting resumes is not the purpose of a Wikipedia userpage. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and do not userfy. The whole point is not to move the spam somewhere else. Burntsauce 18:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy This would fit better on his userpage - Esurnir 02:38, 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 — Caknuck 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karma Air[edit]

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

Procedural nom; I've just declined a {{db-web}} on this as it (vaguely) asserts notability, but as it stands it seems unsourced and very spammy & I can't see any way to clean it up to something valid. However, it's about as far from my area of expertise as it's possible to get — someone might be able to build something valid out of this. — iridescent 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Crap, Crap, Crap, and more Crap!!!!Yourname 00:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does sound intriguing... I've always wanted to listen to discussions on "metaphysical elements such as psychics"! — xDanielx T/C 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 16:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unbelieveable! The first word of the article is an external link!!! -- Emana —Preceding comment was added at 01:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NN, unenlightening content, including a little WP:SPAM. --Evb-wiki 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably per stifle. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wow. - Dravecky 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Radio Stations has been informed of this ongoing discussion.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic High School Athletic Association[edit]

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

Besides the fact that this is just a list, and a lot of the links are to external sources and not even to articles on Wikipedia, we don't do articles on individual school leagues. Corvus cornix 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We certainly do articles on individual sports leagues; any blanket statement such as the one made in the nomination would have to backed up by a Wikipedia policy statement or a demonstration of consensus on the issue, but neither exist. This article makes a clear claim of notability as the largest such league in the United States, and also addresses the multitude of professional athletes that have played in the league, all of which demonstrates notability. Alansohn 00:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So then I can write articles on the Hayward Area Athletic League, the East Bay Athletic League, the Mission Valley Athletic League, ad infinitum? Corvus cornix 01:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, my God, we do have articles on those leagues. That is just wrong. Corvus cornix 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the disruptive point. This article makes strong claims of notability in terms of size and athletic participation. The notability standard has been met here. Alansohn 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • What disruptive point, pray tell? Corvus cornix 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The answering your own question schtick. But I agree, there was no point. And there is still no response to the distinct claims of notability made in the article. Alansohn 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • That wasn't a shtick, that was a clear disgust at having typed those in, hitting save page and finding blue links. Corvus cornix 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll take your word for it. But it sure completely undermines the claim that "we don't do articles on individual school leagues". Alansohn 17:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages". Also please nominate (and delete) East Bay, Mission Valley, and any article of the same ilk.--victor falk 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per Victor falk. Way too many external links, way too little actual encyclopedic content. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep but get rid of the external links...just make them black type. This thing can obviously be cleaned up by someone with more knowledge on the subject, but it seems like it would meet WP:ORG if reliable secondary sources can be found. It's not the primary focus of this article, but it looks like it's been a player in some controversy . - Smashville 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles on school leagues are & should be a standard feature of WP. They are much much better than the usually inappropriate attempts to write articles on the individual athletic teams. DGG (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then rewrite the article. Add more history about the organization. OTOH, since the article doesn't even say what sports are played, maybe it is listcruft. I assume it isn't netball, cricket or chess to name the sports that were played at the Catholic school across the road from where I lived.jonathon 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It should be re-written but it is the largest Catholic atletic league in the country.Callelinea 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have articles on sports leagues, but rarely on high school leagues, fails to meet WP:ORG, and has no Reliable sources. Jbeach sup 04:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Define "rarely". We have at least one for every state in the US. Which means I'm changing my vote to a straight keep. Citing precedent...I believe in this case, it is a valid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to point out that we seem to have an article on almost every other major high school athletic association in the US. There is a category on High school sports associations in the United States with 64 articles...considering there are only 50 states, I don't see how "rare" that is. Smashville 15:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of them listed are state ones with hundreds and hundreds of schools and many sources, this one has not so many and few sources. I found some very local ones (county) that I'm likely going to AFD or prod. We need to have a cut-off for this Jbeach sup 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete all those light blue ELs per EL policy. —ScouterSig 14:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to category It appears that the assertion of notability is based on the school membership and alumni rather than the Association itself. The assertion of being the largest such organization might or might not support notability, depending upon whether the size differential is sufficient to make this Association stand out from others; in addition, this assertion is not supported by citation (a minor but valid criticism). The conversion to category would automatically drop out those schools for which there is no article presently. One problem I see is that a fraction of the schools in the listing mention the Association in their articles, let alone provide a supporting citation to indicate that they are a member. This is prima facie evidence for low/no notability of the Association, in my opinion, as it is insufficiently notable to be mentioned as an important fact with respect to member schools. Categorization does not obviate the need for evidence supporting organization inclusion, of course, but that evidence could/should be in each member article. Also, the 'notable alumni' is an interesting list but derivative in that the only reason why the people are alumni if the Association is because they are alumni of member schools; categorization would drop out this transitive association as inclusion criteria would designate schools as suitable category members, not persons. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Merge was not viable as there is nothing sourced in the article. GRBerry

Catholic High School Hockey League[edit]

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

We don't do articles on individual school leagues. Corvus cornix 23:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus of established editors. Also, several of the keep arguments are from the same user. --Coredesat 00:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus instead given the sources. --Coredesat 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New relationship energy[edit]

New relationship energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about a Neologism, as evidenced by a Google Scholar search on the topic, which yields only four results using the actual term that was apparently coined on usenet. Only two of the four results are in peer-reviewed journals, neither of which give a definition. -- Craigtalbert 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No one is claiming that the term is a hoax or anything like that, but WP:NEO specifically addresses situations where a term has recently been coined, generally does not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Although the term may be widely used in the polyamory community, there aren't reliable sources documenting it's notability (newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, and the like, are generally not acceptable sources). You could make an argument for merging the NRE article with the polyamory article. -- Craigtalbert 05:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, newsgroups and mailing lists are not acceptable sources, but aren't FAQ documents considered acceptable sources? Plus as described in the article, it is documented in the book "The Ethical Slut" which is one of the most popular reference books for polyamory.Musqrat 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Have a look at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NEO. FAQs are generally not reliable sources. The Ethical Slut is a published book, and may use the term "new relationship energy," but that doesn't make the term notable for it's own article. Again, it may be worth mentioning in the polyamory article, or the The Ethical Slut article, but I don't see any information that justifies it's notability for it's own article. -- Craigtalbert 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two more published books that use the term are "Pagan Polyamory" by Raven Kaldera pg 49, and "Polyamory: Roadmaps for the Clueless and Hopeful" by Anthony Ravenscroft pg 196ff (where it forms a subchapter). Any standard of "notability" is necessarily subjective of course, but this article is above the Wikipedia median in terms of published sources to establish meaning and notability, without OR. 23:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.26.161 (talk)
  • Delete as original research and/or neologism. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be at least two acceptable sources on which the material is based. Reporting the published research of others is not OR. DGG (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • question it occurs to me that the term or the concept may also be used in other contexts for relationships that are not polyamory. The article differentiates it from "honeymoon period" but it might be possible to have a more extend and more general discussion which would be easier to source. DGG (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to wictionary. At least half of this article is about what it is not. jonathon 21:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch toKeep per google scholar listings. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the published magazine article on the subject and three book references and the four Google Scholar references below in the article or mentioned above, I've found this term used in 4 dissertations or theses:
  • Wolfe, L.P. (2003) "Jealousy and transformation in polyamorous relationships", doctoral dissertation, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, San Francisco
  • Sheff, E. (2004) "Gender, family, and sexuality", doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Boulder
  • Keener, M.C. (2004) "A Phenomenology of polyamerous persons", master's thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • Cook, E. (2005) "Commitment in Polyamorous Relationships", master's thesis, Regis University, Denver

I suspect some research (going beyond just Googling!) can find several more academic references. The article is clearly not OR, though like a few other articles it might be improved with some more citations over time. The term is (from the published sources) about 20 years old, from before the internet became popular, though its usage only became widespread 15 years ago, so it's not as recent a neologism as Polyamory or many other terms retained on Wikipedia. The above references to popularity in FAQs, web sites, and discussion groups is not relevant as reliable sources for defining the term, but they are relevant to whether the term is "notable" within the culture. Zeph99 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Google Scholar (not Google's web search) is a pretty good indication of the amount of scholarly research on a given subject -- not perfect, but pretty good. It includes most repositories of academic journals as well as results from their book search. Using similar search engines, say Live Search Academic (returns no results). Now if you're a good researcher, and you can find plenty of reliable sources on the subject then it should be easy to write the article using them. I was planning on doing it, but was at a loss for scholarly research on the topic. You can go down the List of academic journal search engines and if you fare any better, then Mazal Tov! Have at it! Through my university, I have access to Adding a Co-Wife. The article doesn't include a scholarly treatment of the term, in fact the entire article is completely anecdotal. Here's the context it's used in, in that article:
To me, Don and Angela's relationship was filled with hot, passionate, incredibly intense "new relationship energy." My older, more settled relationship with Don was filled with daily squabbles, deeper power struggles, and underhanded (but really funny) jokes.
I don't have access to Therapy with Clients Who Are Bisexual and Polyamorous, but from the snippet Google Scholar returns and the abstract, it doesn't look promising. -- Craigtalbert 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update there is a copy of Therapy with Clients Who Are Bisexual and Polyamorous on the authors website [1], the term is used twice but not defined/described. It's also worth noting that while the master's thesis Jealousy and Transformation in Polyamorous Relationships cites a source for it's description of NRE (Stewart, 2002) the thesis is suspiciously missing a bibliography or list of references. My guess is that "Stewart, 2002" is an internet source. -- Craigtalbert 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The various sources cited here fall mostly into three categories and one exception. A couple treat the subject in some detail, consistent with the usage described in this article, and may provide the main sources if the article is kept. Several others define the term more briefly, also consistent with this article. Some of these might be worked into citations, if they go on to make observations once it's defined (the counseling ones sound interesting). A third group (including the above) use the term or its acronym in ways quite consistent with this article, but without offering any definition to the reader. (The exception is only a single reference which seems to get "NRE" wrong; written by a non-polyamorist, it recognizes NRE as a common term among polyamorists, but then speculates (incorrectly) about the phrase intended by the acronym, without actually asserting any knowledge of the matter.) Since a major question regarding this article is whether it should still be classified as a Neologism as relevant to the Wikipedia guidelines, the third category (used but not defined in the reference) is of interest, even though not useful for citation to establish meaning. The Neologism guideline, which is to be applied with common sense, gives the purpose or reason for avoidance of typical recent neologisms as: "because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people". This term is not very recent, is clearly definable, all sources that assert knowledge of the meaning are consistent, some go into detail, all non-speculative usages are consistent, and several print authors no longer even feel it's unfamiliar or ambiguous enough to require definition for their readers (all according to the references available to us and listed elsewhere here). That should address the concerns behind the Neologism guideline, and also serve as some evidence of notability.Memesrus 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am new at participating here, so if this is not the correct format I apologize in advance. The term is an important term in polyamory. I also agree that not everything needs its own article. Perhaps this article could be merged into the polyamory article? lfelia —Preceding comment was added at 17:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exploring that option, terminology has already been spun off from polyamory to its own article. Should the article in question here, as well as compersion perhaps, be merged into the terminology within polyamory article? Or is that article just waiting to be proposed for deletion as well? As others have noted, conceptually new relationship energy and compersion are applicable to all sorts of relationships, but their usage may be widespread mainly within the polyamorous community. Note that within computer technology, Wikipedia has a great number of neologisms (Design pattern, Representational State Transfer, ad nauseum; anyone want to guess how many we could find in 20 minutes?) which are applicable to, used within, and of possible interest to only computer developers; which are often too new and perhaps transient to be in many general dictionaries; and yet which are in their own articles rather than being collected only in "terminology of web services" or "terminology of computer software development" compendium articles. Perhaps polyamory, being a cultural rather than technical phenomenon, should be more restrictive, and should collect common terminology in a single article. Funxion) 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumet, e.g. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument [against deletion] based on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." -- Craigtalbert 04:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Then I suggest that we recommend all the above mentioned articles for deletion as well and see what the response is. The argument isn't that they exist. The argument is that no attempt to delete them would have any hope of succeeding. This is indicative of a certain interesting editorial bias on the part of the Wikipedia community as a whole that deserves some study on its own. But I don't think that furthering that bias by deleting this article because it is a neologism largely (but not completely) specific to a certain subculture is a good idea. If, OTOH, you were to go and put deletion recommendations on the other indicated articles I might take your argument a bit more seriously. Omnifarious 18:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment book search (as referenced by Craigtalbert above) actually brings up 5 additional published book references under the spelled out subject of this article, and an additional 2 when searched for "NRE polyamory" (after eliminating false hits and duplicates). That brings the references in published books cited here to 10. While almost all references are consistent with the description given in the article, one book reference recognizes the popularity of "NRE" in polyamorous culture, but assumes that polyamorists must mean "Non-recoverable engineering" and launches into a spurious editorial on people who weigh their relationships in cost/benefit engineering terms. Alas, that book was apparently written by a non-polyamorist, before this article was entered on Wikipedia (along with the link from disambiguating NRE).
Searching Amazon.com brings up three additional true hits, bringing the total to 13 published books. If it isn't killed, this article is ripe for expansion and better citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memesrus (talk • contribs) 16:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For articles on scientific topics (since NRE is in scientific categories, this applies) "sources for the theory itself are [requited to be in] reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such." This according to the ArbComm ruling. In other words, many of the results for NRE from google book search (results from which are only included in google scholar if they meet scholarly requirements) such as The Complete Idiot's Guide to Tantric Sex are not reliable sources for this topic. -- Craigtalbert 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Excellent point, Craigtalbert; I believe that you have identified the issue. You are explicitly evaluating this article in terms of whether it has been "properly verified as a scientific theory" and thus understandably accepting as relevant only peer reviewed scientific sources. Others apparently understand this article as primarily a description of well documented culture usage, even if scientific (psychological and sociological) use of the term is also beginning to appear. Were the "psychology" category not attached, your quotes above would make no sense. I agree that this article is not a verifiable scientific theory, nor yet even a well established term within science; if having the psychology category attached is misleading, it should be removed, at least until and unless enough solid scientific references accumulate in the future. Perhaps just the non-scientific category Interpersonal_Relationships, already applied, is more appropriate. (Neither Craigtalbert nor anyone else is demanding that, say, Cuddle party or most of the other articles within that non-scientific category must have more than 2 peer reviewed references or face deletion). A reference in a popular book on Tantra is not only irrelevant to verifying a scientific theory, it's downright discrediting and almost scandalous in pristine academia -- which explains the otherwise seemingly gratuitous and selective highlighting of a few juicy sources. However, such a mainstream "idiot's guide" series book actually is relevant to documenting cultural usage and notability therein. This also explains the different treatment here versus hundreds of very recent technological or cultural (but not scientific) neologisms that remain unquestioned on Wikipedia; nobody mistakes a neologism like Representational State Transfer or EURion to be a scientific theory, so such terms understandably face less scrutiny of the sort suggested here. My pondering above was seeking understanding of the blatently different standards being routinely applied to a great many articles, definitely not a suggestion that a few bad other articles justifies keeping this one! I actually didn't want to weigh in one way or the other until that discrepancy was addressed. Your clarification about science vs non-science categories finally makes the issue clear enough for me to "vote" on (below). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funxion (talk • contribs) 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. The terminology originating from the polyamorous community is very quickly coming to the attention the psychology and sociology communities. They recognize the terms as being 1) valuable for communicating ideas about relationships and 2) being applicable to relationship styles outside of polyamorous circles. I do not understand why this is being considered for deletion, as all 4 rules have been followed, and thanks to these comments, there has been 10 more "acceptable" sources to cite. As with most other articles on Wikipedia, it takes time for others to know that the article exists and to add their own comments and research. If this is left up long enough, I think the very flimsy position of not having enough sources will self-correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joreth (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into main article or back into the poly terminology article. This article has been in existence for a year and a half and no one has found any significant sources for it not being a neologism. There really is no evidence for it being a valid psychological and sociological term.Kate 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the interests of full disclosure, this debate has been publicized hereKate 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the interests of further disclosure, that entry has been deleted.--Vidkun 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete Remove the psychology category. This will answer most of the quite legitimate concerns here, and invoke more relevant standards. With 20 years of history, one extensive magazine article about it, 4 Google Scholar references, 4 thesis/dissertation references, and 13 book references already noted here, this is not even close to one of the weaklings of the Wikipedia herd, whose elimination would improve the species. Its accuracy, verifiability and notability, as a cultural term, is well enough established. It needs some expansion and better citation, which can be done if it is not deleted. The psychology category could be reconsidered if enough appropriate references ever accumulate in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funxion (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep based on argument by Funxion.--Vidkun 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a psychology term that seems to be well written and fair-to-moderately sourced. —ScouterSig 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - Merge into another article at least. Compare with Compersion, Limerence. — Omegatron 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The psychology stub tag was removed in a recent revision. Even if it doesn't count as a scientific term, it is very widely used in the polyamorous community and deserves a place in Wikipedia. It is well documented and consistent, so not a neologism. Musqrat 17:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe de Jesús Estévez[edit]

Felipe de Jesús Estévez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Being a bishop is not inherently notable. If he had done something notable on his own, then I could see keeping this. Corvus cornix 23:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Surely bishops (of major denominations) are more notable than most university professors, if only because there are far fewer of them? And profs seem to be getting kept or no consensus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mizuko Ito Moyabrit 00:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, profs are not getting kept unless they meet WP:PROF, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, anyway. And where do you draw the line? Monsignors? Parish priests? There are fewer of those, too. Corvus cornix 01:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bishops usally "rule" over 20 or more parishs, so obviosly a Bishop cannot be compared to a parish priest and the term Monsignor does not confir any juristiction over any other priest or pasish.Callelinea 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep.. I wrote the article and believe that Bishops are notable since the area they "rule" are larger and more populous then some states. Additionally, he is presently the Auxiliary Bishop of Miami. Additionally, plenty of articles on him.Callelinea 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not www.catholic-hierarchy.org. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is it the Pokemon Directory, nor the Star Wars Planet Guide, all of which seem to have articles for their particular entries. Your vote in no way addresses notability for this individual, or the contents of this particular article. Alansohn 19:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, could we keep the discussion on this topic. The consensus is that both that Roman Catholic Bishops are inherently notable and that this particular bishop is notable based on the abundance of references on him. Callelinea 19:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The vote made here still fails to address notability of this individual and this article in any fashion, let alone address the multiple reliable and verifiable sources that have been provided to establish notability. The most disturbing aspect is that this is an admin who believes that "not www.catholic-hierarchy.org" is a valid excuse for deletion. How do you delete an admin? Alansohn 19:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have always consistently kept the bishops of those churches organized around geographic lines. there is always coverage in local news sources as important community figures. and in fact this article does havw such sources. I'd support keeping corresponding figures of other denominations, but it's not quite as easy to tell as when there is an established hierarchy. As an analogy, we do keep university presidents, but only the highest rank of professors. And similarly in other professions, such as sports. DGG (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION..I was wondering if there is someway to join the three Afd nominations together : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez together, since the question before us as presented by the nominator is not really if these bishops are notable but are Roman Catholic Bishops notable just for being bishops.Callelinea 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I question why the move to start deleting articles about the Roman Catholic bishops when no one objected until now.RFD 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Roman Catholic bishop is in charge of the churches, priests, and parishes in his diocese. If the diocese rates an article, so should the Bishop.--Mike Searson 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a bishop is inherently notable Nick mallory 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a Bishop is notable --- at least for churches in communion with the Holy See.×jonathon 00:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and as I said on another disputed bishop article], "there are currently only 2946 Roman Catholic bishops according to this source. Being a bishop is, furthermore, NOTABLE, and if the bishop is of a major diocese, is an extremely public figure, akin to a mayor or even a senator." Alekjds talk 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an actively notable person in Wikipedia Catholicism. NancyHeise 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but not as strongly as my keep votes on the other bishops mentioned above. Estévez is an auxiliary bishop, which means he's not the man in charge of the archdiocese. Technically, he's the bishop of Kearney, Nebraska, who's bishop moved to Grand Island, Nebraska, in 1917. Also, while a search of the Google News Archives for bishop Estévez miami gets 168 results, articles that are clearly not referering to Msgr. Estévez show up a lot sooner (as early as page 2), and almost all of the articles about the bishop are from The Miami Herald. Gentgeen 02:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but, per Gentgeen, not quite as strongly as for the other bishops). The nominator (and some !voters above) have been unhelpfully sidetracked into looking for an automatic-presumption-of-notability provision for bishops, but that's not a requirement, since the references in this article appear to meet the WP:BIO test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I invite the nominator to review WP:BIO and withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO - Galloglass 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the fact that Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are inherently notable, the ample reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Perhaps we need a written guideline on this. Even an auxiliary archbishop for a large arch diocese in an Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church should be inherently notable. Being named bishop should be considered an achievement at least as significant as playing on a pro sports team or being released on a major record label (to compare apples and oranges). Monsignors and priests , unless they've done something else notable, no. A bishop in a sect with a lower membership, probably not. (I didn't say that as clearly as I would have liked.) Someone self anointed or with a small, obscure congregation, not unless otherwise notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping the discussion open on these three bishops, even though all three will probably be kept. I also feel that there should be a written guideline on this also. There is no need for Roman Catholic Bishops being brought up over and over again for AfDs, when the end result will be the same. It would save alot of time and effort if a guideline was in place.Callelinea 20:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The consensus is that the title held by this person DOES make them (inherently) notable. Burntsauce 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. A diocesan (non-auxiliary) bishop should be presumed notable by office. Not so sure about auxiliary bishops unless they have been in the news for other reasons. In many cases the bio could be merged into the article on the diocese, and this is probably one of those cases. According to catholic-hierarchy.org, there are about 3000 dioceses, so 3000 diocesan bishops, but there are about 5000 living bishops. So about 2000 of those are auxiliaries or Vatican officials. Gimmetrow 03:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? Does it matter how many cities there are in the world? I'm sure there might be close to or more than half a million, but all cities are notable. Auxiliary Bishops are only assigned to dioceses (or archdioceses) that have a large Catholic population or a large area.. Where they do not "rule" the diocese they may be given any duties that the Archbishop may assign them. In many cases they control monies or education programs or even day to day affairs of the archdioces. About 30-75% of auxiliary bishops get "promoted" to "rule" their own diocese. They are notable and if someone is willing to put the effort in writting an article Then they deserve one. And for those of you that say that Archbishops are more important then Bishops they are mistaken.. Archbishops rule a larger area or have a larger populations then bishops.. Both are equal in power. Callelinea 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified the stats quoted above, which alleged there were 2946 bishops. That's diocesan bishops, not other bishops. I am also stating that I do not find auxiliary bishops per se notable enough for their own articles, though they should be mentioned in the article on the diocese. Gimmetrow 04:17, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

René Henry Gracida[edit]

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

Being a bishop is not inherently notable. If he had done something notable on his own, then I could see keeping this. Corvus cornix 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep.. I wrote the article and believe that Bishops are notable since the area they "rule" are larger and more populous then some states. This particular Bishop has plenty of references in various national papers due to his right-wing conservative views. Callelinea 03:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia is not catholic-hierarchy.org or LexisNexis. There are sources quoted without explaining what those sources say. There could be a good article on this subject but the one there isn't it. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To have a good article is fine, but in this case the articles mentioned in the reference section ( Washington Post, The Miami Herald, Houston Cronicle, Dallas Morning News, etc.)is to show that this individual is notable, which is the reason why this article was nominated. This person is Very notable.Callelinea 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The references don't reflect anything in the article. If there is notability in the newspaper articles, it isn't being shown in the encylcopedia article. Corvus cornix 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your reason for geting rid of this article is what? That Roman Catholic Bishops are not notable or that this particular bishop is not notable? This is a great source of references and is where I got many of my references on this bishop.. http://nl.newsbank.com/ I wrote this article as a stub of an article to get the bare bone facts in, not to be a perfect well written article. I provided the references for those who believe that this particular bishop is notable, even though my opinion is that all Roman Catholic Bishops are notable.Callelinea 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have always consistently kept the bishops of those churches organized around geographic lines. there is always coverage in local news sources as important community figures. and in fact this article does havw such sources--and not just local,but national. I'd support keeping corresponding figures of other denominations, but it's not quite as easy to tell as when there is an established hierarchy. DGG (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION..I was wondering if there is someway to join the three Afd nominations together : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez together, since the question before us as presented by the nominator is not really if these bishops are notable but are Roman Catholic Bishops notable just for being bishops.Callelinea 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-RFD 20:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Roman Catholic bishop is in charge of the churches, priests, and parishes in his diocese. If the diocese rates an article, so should the Bishop.--Mike Searson 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a bishop is inherently notable Nick mallory 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bishops are, by definition, notable --- if they are in a church that is in communion with the Holy See jonathon 00:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG. Accurizer 00:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and as I said on another disputed bishop article], "there are currently only 2946 Roman Catholic bishops according to this source. Being a bishop is, furthermore, NOTABLE, and if the bishop is of a major diocese, is an extremely public figure, akin to a mayor or even a senator." Alekjds talk 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bishops are notable in Wikipedia Catholicism. NancyHeise 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a search of Google News Archives finds 187 news articles on bishop gracida corpus christi, including articles from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Dallas Morning News. Gentgeen 02:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The nominator was sidetracked into looking for an automatic notability provision for bishops, but this well-referenced article clearly meets the WP:BIO test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I invite the nominator to review WP:BIO and withdraw the nomination, or for an admin to speedy close this AfD per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO - Galloglass 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the fact that Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are inherently notable, the ample reliable and verifiable sources satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Perhaps we need a written guideline on this. Even an auxiliary archbishop for a large arch diocese in an Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church should be inherently notable. Being named bishop should be considered an achievement at least as significant as playing on a pro sports team or being released on a major record label (to compare apples and oranges). Monsignors and priests , unless they've done something else notable, no. A bishop in a sect with a lower membership, probably not. (I didn't say that as clearly as I would have liked.) Someone self anointed or with a small, obscure congregation, not unless otherwise notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping the discussion open on these three bishops, even though all three will probably be kept. I also feel that there should be a written guideline on this also. There is no need for Roman Catholic Bishops being brought up over and over again for AfDs, when the end result will be the same. It would save alot of time and effort if a guideline was in place. Callelinea 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I'm sure that a better approach could have been taken to come to this conclusion. Burntsauce 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A diocesan (non-auxiliary) bishop should be presumed notable by office. However, in many cases the bio could be merged into the article on the diocese. Probably not in this case though, because he's been a bishop of two dioceses and subject to considerable news reports. Gimmetrow 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as a hoax. No real need for AFD on obvious stuff like this. Friday (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clog Brasnoc[edit]

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

It's a silly hoax. Though I hear that since their listing on Wikipedia, the number of Shpigs has tripled... Moyabrit 23:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the photo should be deleted too, but I don't know how. Does it need a separate nomination on here? Moyabrit 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete.Technically yes, but the deleting admin should delete both. This is a speedy, as there's no assertion of notability. Crazysuit 00:34, 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Nevins[edit]

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

Being a bishop is not inherently notable. If he has done something on his own to be notable, then I could see keeping this. Corvus cornix 23:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, unless someone provides a reliable source about something notable that he has accomplished. Just being a bishop doesn't create instant notability. --Bejnar 23:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I am baised on this because I have written the article. This particular Bishop was the FIRST bishop of his diocese. Additionally, I believe all Bishops are notable. Bishops "rule" over a particular area, some dioceses are bigger and more populated then some states of the United States. Additionally there are lots of references of this bishop.Callelinea 03:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bejnar. I definitely don't agree that all bishops are notable. See Diarmuid Martin for one who is and has a good article. Stifle (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bishop is likely to be a newsworthy subject in the area where he's appointed, so I'd be surprised if sources couldn't be found for a bishop, even if such sources couldn't be immediately located online. In any event, there appear to be sufficient sources for this particular bishop.--Kubigula (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this equally true of a parish priest? Where do we draw the line? And just finding sources doens't mean aything, if they don't show some notability other than the fact that he's a bishop. Corvus cornix 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the appointment of a parrish priest is likely to be the subject of coverage beyond a blurb in the local paper. However, if a parrish priest becomes the subject of substantive coverage, then he is probably notable. Finding sources does mean something - if people are writing about the guy then it's objective evidence that he is noteworthy. If they are only writing about him because he is a bishop, then that suggests bishops are generally notable. With respect to this particular guy, there is some coverage related to the Church's sex abuse scandal, which makes him that much more notable.--Kubigula (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have always consistently kept the bishops of those churches organized around geographic lines. there is always coverage in local news sources as important community figures. and in fact this article does havw such sources. I'd support keeping corresponding figures of other denominations, but it's not quite as easy to tell as when there is an established hierarchy. We don't keep parish priests in general because the area of importance is very small. We don't keep articles on neighborhoods unless there is some real notability, and that goes for local churches and their ministers as well. DGG (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a Roman Catholic bishop and as such is in charge of a number of churches, priests, and parishes in his geographic area. The references include several stories which would appear to provide coverage, although I am not able to examine them. I would not necessarily extend this presumption of notability to a self-proclaimed bishop of a less notable church, or to bishops in a church where the title is given out quite freely. Edison 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great source of references and is where I got many of my references on this bishop.. http://nl.newsbank.com/ Callelinea 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • QUESTION..I was wondering if there is someway to join the three Afd nominations together : John Joseph Nevins , René Henry Gracida , and Felipe de Jesus Estevez together, since the question before us as presented by the nominator is not really if these bishops are notable but are Roman Catholic Bishops notable just for being bishops.Callelinea 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-RFD 20:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a Roman Catholic bishop is in charge of the churches, priests, and parishes in his diocese. If the diocese rates an article, so should the Bishop.--Mike Searson 21:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a bishop is inherently notable Nick mallory 23:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBishops are, by definition, notable. jonathon 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DGG and Edison. Accurizer 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are currently only 2946 Roman Catholic bishops according to this source. Being a bishop is, furthermore, NOTABLE, and if the bishop is of a major diocese, is an extremely public figure, akin to a mayor or even a senator. Alekjds talk 01:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bishops are notable in Wikipedia Catholicism. NancyHeise 01:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a search in the Google News Archives finds 444 news articles with the terms bishop nevins venice. I believe that establishes notability. Gentgeen 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The nominator was sidetracked into looking for an automatic notability provision for bishops, but this well-referenced article clearly meets the WP:BIO test of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources. I invite nominator to withdraw the nomination, ot fo admin to speedy close this AfD per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. - Kittybrewster ☎ 13:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO - Galloglass 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church is inherently notable. Furthermore, the ample reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article demonstrate satisfaction of the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 19:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Perhaps we need a written guideline on this. Even an auxiliary archbishop for a large arch diocese in an Orthodox church or the Roman Catholic church should be inherently notable. Being named bishop should be considered an achievement at least as significant as playing on a pro sports team or being released on a major record label (to compare apples and oranges). Monsignors and priests , unless they've done something else notable, no. A bishop in a sect with a lower membership, probably not. ) Someone self anointed or with a small, obscure congregation, not unless otherwise notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping the discussion open on these three bishops, even though all three will probably be kept. I also feel that there should be a written guideline on this also. There is no need for Roman Catholic Bishops being brought up over and over again for AfDs, when the end result will be the same. It would save alot of time and effort if a guideline was in place.Callelinea 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed a no brainer to me. Then I saw there were three of these and that Stifle had voted delete! So I realised it should run the course. I did not know that Bishop articles were coming up for deletion. It does not make sense to me that they are not notable, as I explain above. If the outcomes are consistent on these, we could mention it at Outcomes. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I get it now. This is a series of mass nominations pertaining to bishops. Burntsauce 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: WikiProject Catholicism has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A diocesan (non-auxiliary) bishop should be presumed notable by office. However, in many cases the bio could be merged into the article on the diocese. I suspect this is one of those cases. Gimmetrow 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And? Does it matter how many cities there are in the world? I'm sure there might be close to or more than half a million, but all cities are notable. Auxiliary Bishops are only assigned to dioceses (or archdioceses) that have a large Catholic population or a large area.. Where they do not "rule" the diocese they may be given any duties that the Archbishop may assign them. In many cases they control monies or education programs or even day to day affairs of the archdioces. About 30-75% of auxiliary bishops get "promoted" to "rule" their own diocese. They are notable and if someone is willing to put the effort in writting an article Then they deserve one. And for those of you that say that Archbishops are more important then Bishops they are mistaken.. Archbishops rule a larger area or have a larger populations then bishops.. Both are equal in power. Callelinea 03:48, 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. Hut 8.5 07:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BugnuX[edit]

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

User:Pedro declined db-spam, but suggested to AFD Chealer 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing peculiar about this other than using E17 for the desktop mangler. Distros - especially new ones - aren't inherently notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did indeed decline this under WP:CSD#A7, however the assertions of notability are very weak. Frankly it was borderline. In addition I read a lot of WP:OR in this. Pedro :  Chat  07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Lack of sources provided makes it impossible to verify. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 04:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Still very much spam. Burntsauce 18:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The speciality of this is that it is THE first linux distro aimed at software testing. There are several distros that are aimed at security testing, but not useful for software testing. Indeed it is a relatively new, but is being actively developed and has it's own repository for the software tools. Besides this being the first distro with tools for software testing, should be noted in Wikipedia. bugnux 14:00, 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. The possible merge target was deleted by AFD, making merge non-viable. GRBerry 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meekil[edit]

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

Character from non-notable fantasy trilogy. See alsoWikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Frenalose Galaxy Collection Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to The Frenalose Galaxy Collection or delete. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - character from a series of self-published books -- Whpq 16:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - as author of article I find that quite understandable. Still new to Wikipedia. You can delete it, or tell me that I can (as my understanding is that I'm to NOT blank out the page during AFD discussion.)--Meekil 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. As the article has not had other editors contributing content (aside from administrative edits), you can make a request to delete the article by adding the tag {{db-author}} to the top of the article. This requests a speedy deletion. -- Whpq 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I note that the article on the Frenalose Galaxy Collection, the series in which the character is featured, has been deleted. Currently, both character and series are non-notable. Victoriagirl 17:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, entirely non-notable. Doctorfluffy 04:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Frenalose Galaxy Collection[edit]

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

Non-notable trilogy published by vanity publisher. No GHits for reviews from reputable sources. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, vanity press, and it's interesting that all three of the people who commented on the books at amazon.com have only commented on these books. Corvus cornix 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - series published through a self-publishing press. No independent reviews or coverage from reliable sources to indicate notability -- Whpq 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep from a biased source as I wrote the article and it's my first, fresh out of the sandbox. It does need a tag requesting third party sources (though I don't know how, yet). It seems to qualify as allowed per WP:V "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as...". The plan is to add to it with 3rd party sources, explanations about what the fictional "Frenalose Galaxy" is, cover picture, and other relevant information. Currently, all included content is factual and verifiable.--Meekil 18:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual and verifiable perhaps, but sadly not notable. The policy on vanity publishing says: "...it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability....By the same token, it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article." Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:24, 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. There is a good case for merge here, but consensus for such a move should be sought through the usual discussions. Since there are reliable sources for the term (NSW Police and the Sydney Morning Herald), there really isn't any case for deletion at all. At least it should be a redirect. --Tony Sidaway 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Security Industry Registry[edit]

Security Industry Registry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

unsourced article about a police squad. Each squad of police that focus on a particular set of crimes - or here - just a few statutes are not notable. Are we going to have New York Police Department's missing person task force, California Highway Patrol's seatbelt enforcement squad, Texas Rangers' homicide division and 10's of thousands of others getting articles? No. Put this info in the police force's article and redirect perhaps, otherwise delete. Carlossuarez46 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Bad faith Nom, It is not a police squad its a Corporate Service. AFD not even 24 hours after creation. Should be kept cause of nom not understanding articl. ExtraDry 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\talk 21:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant information with New South Wales Police Force per nom. The creator of the article should be reminded that editors should assume good faith and remain civil. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hard to AGF when its AFD not even 24 hours after creation. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. A register of security personnel is neither uncommon nor controversial. An article on the NSW security industry might be interesting, and provide an opportunity to reference this Registry, but this as a standalone piece is just indiscriminate information. Euryalus 04:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coment - You are clearly not blocked at the moment and no additional claim to notability has been added to the article. If you have additional material that would indicate notability, now would be a good time to make it clear. Euryalus 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge relevant information. Doesn't seem notable on its own. However, those redlinks violate WP:BEANS. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing stopping you now. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some very few such squads might in fact be notable,but there is not the least evidence that this one is. DGG (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not a squad the Nom is incorrect. I could not add things to it to prove notablity cause i was blocked by the nom. ExtraDry 08:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New South Wales Police Force. If it expands enough to warrant an article of its own at a later date, then recreate it.jonathon 21:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per WP:N. User is not blocked now, and has still not added anything to indicate notability. It should be noted Australian police agencies have in some cases 30-60 of these subsidiaries, none of which receive any particular attention from anyone outside the agency itself. Orderinchaos 13:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Twenty Years 10:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It surpasses WP:N (and WP:ORG) and should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Auroranorth (sign) 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a bad faith nomination, just one that does not quote policy. This article is just not notable. There is only a single cite and an external link that could be turned into a cite, which fails the reliable sources rule. Underneath this box, it states, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Otherwise is must be deleted. Possibly merge into New South Wales Police Force, if that is even relevant. Bearian 16:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four IV[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria, sounds like an advertisement Pilotbob 21:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's Spam Yummm Yuummmm! Yourname 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free of Style[edit]

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

Non-notable event that gets four Google hits, none of them in independent media. Originally written as an advertisement, I pared it back to the basic facts. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 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. This is an exceptionally poorly written article on a controversial subject, but the source material is there and we don't delete articles if it's possible to write a good encyclopedia article on the subject. Let's be patient with this subject. --Tony Sidaway 00:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi intelligence[edit]

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

Per request, this AfD is split off from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history). See reasoning for deletion there. I was not the original nominator, but I split this off per request. All comments below were specific for this article and have been moved from the original page. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more? Ashkenazi intelligence

  • Keep This article allows searchers to locate in Wikipedia a summary of information about the specific topic "ashkenazi intelligence". As this phase will continue to appear in both popular media as well as scientific literature, it serves Wikipedia's mission statement that information about the subject be easily and specifically locatable. Some commenters below suggest that there is no "ashkenazi intelligence". That may be, but there is and will forever more be the subject of "ashkenazi intelligence", even though it may or may not turn out to be a scientifically valid concept. "Lobotomy" has an extensive listing in Wikipedia. It even mentions that a popularizer, Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize in 1949 for it. I haven't seen anyone suggest that "lobotomy" be deleted from Wikipedia as a specific listing. Nor should it. It is a specific subject that someone may wish to search for. Wikipedia's mission is to present information, as much as can be accumulated, on specific subjects that people may search for. Amaterna 12:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this article as well, since I missed it in the first pass, and everything I said in my rationale for the others applies to this as well. – ornis⚙ 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebird has just pointed out on my talk page that the above article survived a previous AfD. Nonetheless it was closed as "no consensus" and I think this really should be merged with the others. – ornis⚙ 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (moved)

  • Delete and merge - For the same reasons. futurebird 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge as per above.--Ramdrake 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REQUEST: Please relist Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: To ConfuciusOrnis: Being "Ashkenazi" is not a "race" by any definition. The Ashkenazim are a cultural and historical group of Jews, not really even an ethnicity, consisting of a variety of Jews with a common religious and historical culture originating mainly from France, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia, so that Ashkenazi Jews are a recognized and respectable group, not a "race" in any way, so it is a mistake to match them up or compare them to any "racial" articles. Futhermore, in your sweeping nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) you did not list Ashkenazi intelligence as part of the original group in the AfD until another user pointed the article out to you and you then decided to add it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence. Unfortunately, by that time the nomination had already attracted a lot of negative attention with ten delete votes already having been cast making it essentially impossible for those only concerned with the Ashkenazi intelligence subject to be heard or noticed, and among the votes that are coming in afterwards it is not clear if they understood what you did. For the sake of clarity, I urge you to remove the Ashkenazi intelligence from this nomination due to the confusion and the non-orderly and out of sequence manner in which you included it. As you are aware, the Ashkenazi intelligence article survived an AfD in February, 2007, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence. Based on the incorrect manner and negative timing that the Ashkenazi intelligence was included in the general vote about "Race and intelligence" it must be withdrawn from this AfD. If you wish to have a new nomination, go ahead, for it definitely should not have been lumped with a set of articles not connected to it in content or spirit. Thank you, IZAK
  • Re: Ashkenazi intelligence (only). Keep or Separately relist, per IZAK above. This hypothesis has attracted specific research, and has attracted specific comment in the heavyweight media, on which the article is based. The article should not be bundled in with the other articles being discussed. Instead, it should be left separate as is for the time being, while the other articles remain so problematic. Jheald 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is just as problematic as the other, and for the same reasons.--Ramdrake 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SEE: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Relisting Ashkenazi intelligence as a separate vote: "I think that pages should only be grouped together on XfD if all the following criteria are met: (1) There is a single place to discuss all the pages. (2) It is unlikely that any user will have diferent opinions about the pages. (3) They were all listed within an hour of when the discussion page was created. As the third criteria clearly wasn't met, I think that lumping it in here was the wrong thing to do. Od Mishehu 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on Aryan intelligence (Nazi eugenics). A topic is not deleted just because it offends someone. If it is notable with reliable sources it should be included. If you think the title is biased, they you should suggest renaming. Jon513 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Zionist Eugenics? Seriously though, if I knew the English word for Rassenwahn, I would much rather use it than Ashkenazi intelligence. A good, netural compromise might be Claims of Ashkenazi intelligence. However, I recommend a merge. pedro gonnet - talk - 30.10.2007 08:34

Sadly, Jon513 either misses or ignores the central point. There is NO article called Aryan intelligence and that is very much the point. Claims by one group or another (or a non-scientist and panderer like Charles Murray) that one group or another is superior to another is always suspect, and without foundation. This article cites Murray who is an authority on nothing but his ideologically based opinion pushing.Skywriter 21:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is no article call "aryan intelligence", but there is an article on the topic of nazi claims about aryan intelligence. If you want to rename this article into "studies on claims of Ashkenazi intelligence" or something like that I wouldn't really care. But you want to delete the whole article because you think that "one group or another is superior to another is always suspect, and without foundation". And while I agree with your POV - it is only one POV. If there is notable studies on the subject, even studies that you disagree with, it warrants an article. Jon513 10:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no further votes on Ashkenazi intelligence as it must be a separate vote according to the criteria noted by Od Mishehu (it was not listed correctly). IZAK is correct that there needs to be a distinct vote, away from this mess. A Sniper —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep or Perhaps Merge to Ashkenazi Jews for same reasons given when this article was first nominated, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence, because all the citations are good. The creator of this article [2] placed it in an unenviable out-of-context situation that casts doubt on it, but it definitely has something to say as many in science, politics and religion (Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Albert Einstein, Leon Trotsky, the Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov and many others) are all proof that this article is 100% correct. IZAK 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Isn't this the second time this article is being nominated for deletion. Muntuwandi 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a part of this larger request to merge all of the Race and intelligence articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history) futurebird 23:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Muntuwandi: To be correct: Technically this is the third time this article is being nominated for deletion. You can view the first nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence which resulted in a Keep due to "no consensus" and then it was recently nominated for the second time as an appendment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and intelligence (history)#One more? Ashkenazi intelligence, but because it was addded after that the vote about "Race and intellignce" was already underway, that move was appealed, there was no decision about the article itself, and then the new AfD vote was opened here, making it the third time it's faced an AfD nomination. IZAK 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources from respected scientists in the field to support a theory on the evolutionary development of Ashkenazi intelligence, all of which clearly satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 00:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Although not as bad as the "Race and intelligence" article, I still believe deletion is the best way to go here. This article only mentions isolated genetic differences as a possible cause in differing intelligence levels, and, as usual it seem for these articles, it has not been mentioned that IQ does not necessarily mean intelligence. By the way, considering the concept of race is questionable, claiming that "Ashkenazi" refers to a "cultural group" as a defense for holding on to an article specifically designed to help group such a "culture" as a "race" doesn't really make sense. I'm not going to argue with IZAK but listing a bunch of smart people as a proof for racial intelligence is the type of reasoning that creates these kinds of debates.Frank0570618 01:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Frank0570618[reply]
    • Hi Frank: It's not clear what you mean by "Delete and merge" -- merge to which article?
  • Delete and merge - This could easily be merged into the Race and intelligence article. Brusegadi 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Please note that merge and delete are mutually exclusive. If content is merged, then a redirect must be provided to comply with the GFDL requirement to attribute authors. Also anyone suggestion a merge should specify to where they would like the content merged. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone suggesting that this article is original research must specify what content fails Wikipedpia policy and what all those sources are. Otherwise these is just a long-winded WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At least the delete and merge folks are clear that there is no policy violation here and have not offered any valid explanation for why the article must be deleted under any relevant Wikipedia policy. Alansohn 11:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Says who? Stifle (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless you're reading a different article, the one under discussion here is chock full of sources documenting the hypothesis. It may or may not be true, but the sources demonstrate that the hypothesis exists, coming from reliable and verifiable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As your claim of original research has no basis in fact other than as an excuse for deletion, you will need to provide evidence to support your POV claim. Alansohn 19:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a genuine hypothesis, and there are sufficient sources. it is fairly presented as a controversy. I don't know what more can be asked for. If one thinks some of the studies wrong, that's apparently based on one's independent evaluation of the material reported. But that's pure POV and OR., If there are criticisms to insert, insert them. An editing question only. Personal opinions on whether there are or are not inter-group differences, or whether the Ashkenazi are a "race" in the relevant sense are not relevant here. There is no reason why there could not be an article on Aryan intelligence either. Even prejudices can be discussed objectively. DGG (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly controversial, but sourced. Wikipedia does not have to be politically correct by taking it as undisputable doctrine that persons of all genders, racial and ethnic backgrounds, and nationalitles are absolutely equal in every physical, mental, medical, or emotional attribute. Edison 19:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Edison. Totally un-P.C., but well-sourced. I would encourage editors to insert an appropriate "criticism of" section per WP:POV. Bearian'sBooties 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Genuine controversy and issue of interest. A number of sources are provided, no delete vote has pointed out any specific OR or non-verifiability that I can see. Race and intelligence is too long already, plus it's a mess: this definitely shouldn't be merged there. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. Just because you disagree with the research doesn't mean it's POV or OR. These studies have been covered in the Economist, National Geographic, the New York Times, and the New Yorker, who don't normally just give time to crackpots. This is a well-sourced article that seems to describe the research fairly. If someone wants to add a criticism section or to start a corresponding article for non-Jews (sourced of course), have at it. That, not deletion, is your recourse if you don't like published scientific findings. Calliopejen1 15:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article makes several controversial assumptions (such as Ashkenazi=distinct biological ethnicity, IQ==intelligence, and linking neurological diseases with enhanced brain function, none of which is established as fact). In that sense, it is extremely misleading unless put in proper perspective, and the best way to do that, IMHO is to merge whatever is salvageable back to the main article.--Ramdrake 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is crucial: delete and merge is not an option! The GFDL prohibits it. We can delete, or redirect and merge, but not delete and merge. Calliopejen1 15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Please point to the proper policy which "prohibits delete and merge", in the sense that whatever info is salvageable from these articles should be merged back to the main article and whatever isn't worth salvaging should be deleted. It is my understanding that this has been done numerous times before, and nobody ever raised an objection based on GFDL. So, unless you can show proof, merge and delete is an option.--Ramdrake 17:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually he is right there. In order to fullfill GFDL criteria, the authorship history for all text must be preserved. If we merge pieces of text from this article to any other article, we can never delete this one, as that would remove the author history for that text. Therefore, we then usually redirect it to the other article. If, however, information is merged back (and the actual text rewritten from scratch) this "problem" can be circumvented. Unfortunately you are right that many merge and deletes have taken place and currently Wikipedia is filled with LOTS of GFDL violations. For more information, see (among others) Wikipedia:Merge and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Well sourced, useful, and valid research. Modernist 21:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I find it rather shocking that this article is being considered for deletion. There are lots of bad articles out there; this isn't one of them. — xDanielx T/C 03:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with Race and intelligence. Article is too short (or at least what is sourced is too short) to warrent its own article, but the topic is valid. Yahel Guhan 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep : material from peer reviewed sources. relevant information. Neutral. All other concerns are not to be dealt by wikipedia. Alithien 22:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One could easily find reason to fault the hypotheses the article discusses on many grounds. But the fact is they are notable as verified by standard Wikipedia criteria -- independent reliable sources. The fact that there appears to be more media sources like the New York Times referenced than scientific sources may suggest that their popular notability exceeds their scientific value, but this simply doesn't matter. Because Wikipedia:NOT#CENSORED, it doesn't matter how disagreeable or distasteful or wrong these views may be. Deletion discussions are strictly on notability and verifiability. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - My keep vote is without prejudice to the possibility of merging into another article. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Ashkenazi Jews have the highest IQ in the world. This is an indisputable fact. That said, this article is notable and shouldn't be deleted because of this fact alone. — EliasAlucard|Talk 12:02 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Ashkenazi Jews. Karanacs 18:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is idiotic. So just because a topic is politically incorrect, we must suppress it, is that it? Clearly a lot of people believe Ashkenazi Jews have a very high IQ. Either they do or they do not - and this article can serve to prove or disprove it. Political correctness is a sign of stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.181.131 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too big to merge. "Race" is a social construct anyway, so no argument there. The topic is common enough in online discussions that people go to google or wikipedia and look for the title of the article. PC or not, the meme is alive and well. FiveRings 19:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 01:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bellal Amerkhail[edit]

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

This was deleted via WP:PROD with the concern being that the article is a hoax. I am inclined to agree, there are no decent hits on google and as the prod nominator noted, no such player currently plays for Freiburg or has ever played for DC United. Hiding Talk 21:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V. Punkmorten 07:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax as set out above ChrisTheDude 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete hoax. - fchd 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say he looked notable, but delete as hoax. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hoax. Sebisthlm 11:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. St Louis Steamers are not a football club... ArtVandelay13 12:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax. No evidence of him playing for either DC United or Freiburg. Jogurney 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - hoax. GiantSnowman 21:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he is good, screw you americans
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goldshield[edit]

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

An article originally written in very promotional terms, since improved, but notability concerns have never been addressed. No third-party references. Acroterion (talk) 21:24, 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. Hut 8.5 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston & District Dolphins[edit]

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

Local swim club, fails notability guideline Pilotbob 21:15, 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. Article has been improved and nom also appears to be withdrawn.Kubigula (talk) 03:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hills High School[edit]

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

Does not assert notability, though I am lenient on high schools. What pushed me to AfD it is that it is written like a directory, and ends up holding no encyclopedic value as a result. Wizardman 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Looks better now. Wizardman 18:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep A rather poorly written article, written as a laundry list, rather than as an article. But it does make distinct claims of notability, including 9 years of consecutive wins by the Symphonic and Jazz band in national competition, and a 36-year win streak by the Eastern Hills JROTC Rifle Team. I have already started trimming and copyediting, and the article has much more room for improvement. Alansohn 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upgrading vote to Keep. Again, kudos must be offered to User:TerriersFan for taking the time and effort to research and improve the article, when so many others just sit on their behinds and do absolutely nothing. It is effort like this that is the definition of collaboration in building an encyclopedia, not just getting rid of what some don't like. Alansohn 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and Someschool Y won the district ballet competition 10 yrs in a row and Someschool Z has won the gold medal in archery for 37 yrs. In that case, let's drop the charade that they meet WP:N and let's just say that all schools are automatically notable, like towns and villages. I personally wouldn't mind, I believe there are definitive advantages with that solution, but giving any kind of topic special de facto implicit privilieges regarding policies is not a good thing in my opinion. Either they should be enforced or declared not valid for that topic.--victor falk 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No argument from me on the implicit notability of schools, which would save much wasted time. If I understand your "argument", are you saying that this school's accomplishments are not notable because some other school -- which you can't even identify -- just might have won accomplishments in some other area that are even greater than this school? What are these "special de facto implicit privilieges [sic] regarding policies" that are taking place here? This is the definition of consensus: the amassing of evidence over scores of AfDs that there is strong agreement that such schools are notable, even if there is a stubborn minority that opposed this consensus.

Alansohn 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

        • First you misunderstand my argument. I'm not "unable to identify" some other school, it's a hypotethical example showing that any school could fit the bill. I'm not against articles against schools with notable achievements, I'm against articles about schools with just achievements. It's like saying "only notable persons should have articles" and then saying "every person is notable because every human being has achieved something". Like me running a marathon in under four hours. Second, about consensus, if it is that such schools are notable per se, so be it. But then don't pretend they meet guidelines like wp:n, etc.--victor falk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. Poorly written is not a reason for deletion Smashville 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Very strong. This school has no notability, nor does it assert notability. It does look like a directory, providing no real context. - Rjd0060 22:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Though it needs a tag requesting third party sources Frog47 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unless the creator can establish notability. Most of the information can be obtained from the schools website. I don't think it is necessary to know what subjects are taught. Muntuwandi 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can people stop quoting WP:OUTCOMES in cases where there is no apparent notability? That page is just a "scorecard" of what has happened. Not what should happen. Crazysuit 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - High schools are notable per WP:CONSENSUS as WP:OUTCOMES indicates. --Oakshade 05:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no consensus, as the lack of a sorely needed WP:SCHOOL policy should be a hint of. And wp:outcomes is really a pathetic reason, much worse than wp:otherstuff (of which it is basically a grand generalisation). No, the reason not to keep is that "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages".--victor falk 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a school directory or the school's website. There is no longer a general consensus that all schools are notable. This article lacks external sources to verify the content. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The combination of alumni and athletics is sufficient for notability. I think there is a developing consensus that all high schools are sufficiently notable that the articles should be kept as a matter of practicality. Let's save AfD for the more important discussions. But even if one does not agree, this particular article is acceptable.DGG (talk) 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have now added the necessary multiple references to meet WP:N. Further expansion is needed but that is the way with stubs. Since this is a discussion, not a vote, the deleters need to argue why the combination of references do not meet WP:N for their !votes to be valid. TerriersFan 18:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the excellent work by TerriersFan, this now meets WP:N and invalidates many previous comments. RFerreira 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'm sorry but I have to disagree. Consider the following hypothetical news item: "Grand auto thievery red-lighted: The thief that had stolen Random Schmuck's car, who had bought it secondhand from Someguy X was apprehended by the police..." Would that be ground for an article about Someguy X? It wouldn't be even if he was the car thief. Replace Someguy X with Someschool X and that the kind of "news coverage establishing notability" you find in this article. --victor falk 19:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are more than welcome to disagree, but this certainly meets our notability guidelines. RFerreira 19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There must be something I've missed then; why hasn't every person that's ever been mentioned in a couple of news story its own article?--victor falk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 1 The consensus on the advisability of considering all high schools notable is not yet complete--examination of the various discussions over the past 2 weeks at AfD shows a considerable variability. It seems to be asserted more widely when there are good reasons for thinking the school notable in any case. By the way, my own opinion has changed in this. Until fairly recently, I did not agree on their all being notable--and I think that some of them may not actually be in any ordinary meaning of the word, any more than all inhabited places or all railroad stations. I think it is rather a combination of convenience and compromise. The great majority of established high schools turn out to be notable by WP standards if enough effort is put into the article, and it is not worth these discussions to weed out the remaining 10 or 20%. This is very different from elementary schools, where I'd say less than 10% are notable. And that's the [point of the compromise. If we accept the distinction, we can spend our afd energies on more important things. We might even have time to write some more articles--there are many high schools not yet written about that almost certainly should be, especially in major cities.
  • comment 2 Crimes relating to schools are notable in many cases because he public finds them so, and the sources are therefore available. In this case, the primary one is the administrations hiding of evidence in a murder case. If someguy X in the above example had been a senior public official in the community who had been caught conspiring with other public officials to conceal his involvement in selling a car to someone without proper identification who had then used it in a deliberate murder, yes that might also be notable. That's closer to the situation here.
  • comment 3 It is true that over time most high schools will accumulate some athletic and academic competitive victories. That's one of the reason most of them are notable. that elementary schools do not generally have such competitions is one of the reasons they generally aren't. (I've come back to expand these three comments at the request of victor talk.)DGG (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability is now demonstrated within the article. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 18:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ONLY if the "Statistics" section can be cited. —ScouterSig 14:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 vandalism. Sandahl 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey face[edit]

Monkey face (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I think this is a valid encyclopedia topic where we have rusty trombone and dirty sanchez.MarstonB68 21:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Classical Dance Education at The Ekaterina Dance Studio[edit]

Russian Classical Dance Education at The Ekaterina Dance Studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable dance studio. Fails the notability policy and does not cite reliable sources. STORMTRACKER 94 20:50, 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 dewiite. krimpet⟲ 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Wii games[edit]

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

This is trivial information that only a select few people care about. I also believe it falls under game guide material, as it explains many features for the games. This exists on the gamer wiki already, which is the suitable place for an article like this. RobJ1981 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frag all the relevant content is (or should be) in the infoboxes/body of the actual articles. Not to mention that it's bordering on synthesis (if not original research), which we should not be doing in the first place. David Fuchs (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that most of that info is too technical to be widely useful. I think that the most important things are Miis, Wi-Fi, and WiiConnect24. Those things are the most important to general users and what a general user is most likely to look up. We already have List of Wii Wi-Fi Connection games. There were lists of the other two, but they were merged. I believe those lists should be brought back instead. -Zomic13 21:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator, only a very small number of users would be technical or interested enought to actually seek this kind of information. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYN. Not denying that it's useful information, but this is the wrong place for it. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it erads part game guide, and part consumer buying guide -- Whpq 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic. JJL 02:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag per User:David Fuchs. Carson 17:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dewiit per above. Burntsauce 18:13, 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 due to lack of demonstrated real-world notability and reliable secondary sources. MaxSem 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guild Wars characters[edit]

List of Guild Wars characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From the views of a non-reader, a list of unnotable characters from a game has little to no relevence to the real world, failing notability.

Also, out of the only four sources on the page, three of them came from the same source (ArenaNet). The last one as far as I know is even more irrelevant, being about the music of the game.

Basically, this is gamecruft, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles, which explains why this article exists. WP:FICT allows articles on characters of a fictional work, and, moreover, recommends making a list for large numbers of characters. WP:CRUFT is not a content inclusion policy or guideline, and therefore unsuitable as a rationale for deletion. This is not an indiscriminate list as it contains only the main characters from a notable series of games. The notability of individual entries of this list may be settled in the article's talk page instead of AfD; several of them have been noted in the gaming press for which citations can be found. Eric Sandholm 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no exhaustive list of things that are and are not acceptable deletion criteria. It's funny how often the "it's just an essay/guideline, therefore we don't have to take any notice of it" comes up when it suits people. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you may mean "when it suits the article" That's the very reason repeated attempts to make some of these essays into guidelines & guidelines into policy have been consistently rejected--they are not always appropriate to the situation. DGG (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to delete per WP:FICT. No Guild Wars character is independently notable. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gamecruft plain and simple. No notability outside of the game. Solely in universe context. Pilotbob 21:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another example of constant cruft sprawl from a game. Also I"m not sure WP:Fict should cover games. A book is notable because it's a work of fiction, a game while having elements of fiction is notable for other reasons. Also sorry don't buy the claim thaty this lists only notable characters. This list has somewhere around 100 entries. Ridernyc 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Gamecruft at its finest. If there is a relevant game wiki for guild wars with a compatible license, then transwikification to there is an option. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While I like the page, it grew well beyond the "notable" fictional game characters quite a while back. I could alternately support a massive purge of the lesser characters, leaving only the ones who follow the player across multiple campaigns, plus the one principal antagonist from each campaign. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have just drastically reduced the article. It needs de-in-universification, but I am not prepared to put any more effort into it if is going to be deleted anyway. Eric Sandholm 15:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per WP:FICT - Now that several dozen of the lesser characters have been purged, I can now change my opinion to a Keep ... although the individual descriptions still require additional cleanup. However, I agree that it's most prudent to wait for the outcome of the AfD before investing further effort. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as any fool can read the writing on the wall, I have delinked this article from all other Guild Wars articles. Eric Sandholm 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In the current format, shortened by Eric, I think this page contains only the notable characters from the series which have have seen and mentioned in the game press. If the page is deleted the character bios now wouldn't take up much space in the individual campaign articles, so could be moved/merged there if desired. I still prefer to keep it however because several of the characters are notable across the different campaigns. --Aspectacle 21:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lists of game characters are usually good, notable and possibly have a lot of out of universe context. However, this MMORPG has no demonstrable plot or story, greatly decreasing the possible value of such a list. If it has a plot and story, write about it in Guild Wars first, and see if all the information can be confined to that space. User:Krator (t c) 00:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the story/plot sections of Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars Factions, Guild Wars Nightfall and Guild Wars Eye of the North. Unlike other MMORPG Guild Wars does have an overall plot which drives the content of each of the games, as such your comment is not valid. Prior to the edits performed by Eric each story section linked into the page currently up for deletion. --Aspectacle 01:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those three pages indeed describe a plot in great detail. However, I have to note the following:
  • The three plots seem distinct, with few or no recurring characters. Also, due to the nature of the game, I would compare these plots with quests in a regular RPG.
  • The main page, Guild Wars, describes no plot. I believe that the space provided by that page to describe plot and story is sufficient space to describe any important characters.
User:Krator (t c) 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Guild Wars article refers to the game series, the individual campaign articles refer to the actual games, with each campaign having a storyline involving 1-2 dozen central "missions" and hundreds of "quests" each - the comparison to other RPG's quests is not valid. The article in AfD lists the central characters that do appear in all campaigns, as well as key characters of each campaigns, some of whom also play a role in multiple campaigns. While these could be merged into the overview article and/or the individual campaign articles, I feel the central article allows for better consistency and easier cross-referencing - although I do feel that the article in AfD needs considerable clean-up to eliminate the in-universe writing style that still remains. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The comparison to other RPG's quests is not valid." - As this was one of the central points in my argument, I ask you - why? I do not see how individual characters in quests in individual Guild Wars expansions are more notable or worthy of mention than, for example, Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark. User:Krator (t c) 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability of these fictional characters.--Gavin Collins 14:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do keep in mind that this article is already a merger of pre-existing character articles in a game that is notable for its unique approach to story and character in an MMORPG when voting. I think it's appropriate for highly character/story-driven media to have seperate pages going into more detail. provided they are linked from and tie into the main article appropriately. That said, this article will need improvement if it's kept. --54x 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles like this is what Wikipedia is good at. We should not be trying to delete stuff like this, but give it proper referencing (which, in this case, can be perfectly valid done from primary sources). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Eric has de-linked pages that linked to the article I can't tell how useful it was in respect of the articles it linked to, maybe he has a rough idea from memory? Certainly, per 54x's argument, if this list is the product of individual articles being merged and then redirected to the list, deleting seems counter-intuitive. I also use common sense in that the weight of the referencing will be from primary sources, the talk page seems active in spotting duff inclusions, considering the nature of the subject, I'm content with that, issuing only a caution about the careful wording needed when using primary sources. I also note no real discussion on the talk page as to the article's perceived failings, which should be encouraged and rationalised.--Alf melmac 22:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use the history if you want, but most links will be dead because the list used to contain a number of trivial characters. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far no one has addressed the fact that this articles fails WP:Plot there is no real world context anywhere in this article, it basically amounts to giant plot summary. Also WP:Fict is a guideline not policy. There is currently a debate going on about WP:Fict and the section that would apply to this has been removed because it contradicts policy. Ridernyc 00:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When this article was created, WP:FICT was considerably more permissive than it is today. Back then there used to be a prominent recommendation to make lists for main characters in a notable fiction. The current WP:FICT seems to claim that only characters with notability commensurate with that of Superman or Hamlet are worthy of Wikipedia. There is no contest, then: no Guild Wars characters has anywhere close to that level of importance. Eric Sandholm 07:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article also makes no attempt to pass WP:Plot. A well written properly sourced articlke that passes WP:Plot will almost always pass all other tests. Ridernyc 13:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that deletion because it doesn't conform to style is a weak argument - if article is allowed to exist it should be allowed to continue if it might be able to be bought up to the standards governed by the wiki. All pages in the wiki at some point start out not conforming to some standard or other. There are other lists of video game characters which are allowed to continue on this wiki which, to me, have about as much notability as the guild wars one but just have more referencing(Characters of Final Fantasy VIII or Characters in the Halo series).
My concession to this is that I'm not sure that any of the editors around at the moment which regularly edit the Guild Wars articles are willing to wade through the manuals and game quotes necessary to flesh out the article to meet the standard. --Aspectacle 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made. I object to using "cruft" as grounds for nomination. ---Kizor 08:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the common characters of all expansions to the main article, merge each specific expansion characters to the specific expansion articles; each of these will not heavily weight down the respective articles and removes the issue of sub-article notability. Add a "Plot/Story" section to the main Guild Wars article (possibly in lieu or in combination with the current Campaigns section to give a very high-level overview of the theme such that the common characters can be added to it . --MASEM 16:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging is completely unnecessary. The plot sections in the separate game articles are undergoing review and in the end there will be no need to merge anything from the characters page. Creating a plot section in the overview article Guild Wars would simply make it exceed the recommended page size without adding any value. Eric Sandholm 20:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plot summary, and no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. --Phirazo 17:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT - no indication of real-world notability for any of these characters. Miremare 23:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft races[edit]

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

A plain mess of unnotable material.

This article also appeared to have an entire year to gather sources but failed to attain even one, making it lean more towards original research.

As mentioned before, this page have failed notability, as anyone that does not play the Warcraft games would be interested in reading this article.

This is pretty much gamecruft for the Warcraft series. IAmSasori 20:18, 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 Kill with fire. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft miscellaneous races[edit]

List of Warcraft miscellaneous races (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Completely unnotable; even more unnotable than List of Warcraft races.

Wikipedia is not a game guide. People who do not play the Warcraft series will have no interest in these lists.

Along with that, it is not cited at all. It has failed notability and can easily be deemed as gamecruft. IAmSasori 20:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or transwiki. It is not notable outside of the warcraft universe. Crufty. Pilotbob 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki. The article is trivial game guide information. RobJ1981 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. This info is of no use to anyone not playing the games. Ridernyc 06:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WoWWiki if it is not already contained there, and/otherwise delete. Completely inappropriate content for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not notable even for Warcraft players, let alone anyone else. Terraxos 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as these fictional races have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of a game guide.--Gavin Collins 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Burntsauce 18:14, 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 Delete, per WP:NOT. End of story. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devine Intervention (spell)[edit]

Devine Intervention (spell) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

While this was proposed for merge with the World of Warcraft article, it just seems to contain too much gamecruft to make it into the main article.

The article speaks in the 2nd person amongst opinionation, failing point of view easily.

Finally, it is not notable. There are no sources on this article, and it is probably better to delete rather than merge cruft into the main article. IAmSasori 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is certainly cruft. It even has tips for using the spell. Wikipedia is not a fansite or a trivia guide for games. I also agree that it is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title isn't even spelled correctly. It's Divine. Haha.81.158.211.115 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, far far far beyond anything that is in any way appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Stormie 00:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, it's a GFDL violation, the content has been lifted from this page on WoWWiki, without crediting the authors. --Stormie 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now we are moving things from wikis where they belong on to here. Ridernyc 06:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Stormie. I can't express in words how irrelevant this is to Wikipedia. In fact, I am going to snowball speedy this now. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus — I can't close a discussion as "weak delete", but I would note that this totally fails notability guidelines. The most compelling argument on the "Keep" side is the assertion that it can be cleaned up. I would strongly suggest that users work on this aspect, and pronto, because articles cannot persist indefinitely on such a basis. In addition arguments like "gamecruft", "lots of things link to this" and "but this article is the same as it too" are not compelling, and add nothing. Clean it up, or I reckon the next discussion will be a delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haemo (talk • contribs) 01:08, 4 November 2007

List of Warcraft characters[edit]

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

While the reference template have been recently added, it still appears as if it is cruft. Even if the template has been placed recently, it has still failed notability, as only players and readers of the series would be interested.

While the books do exist in hard copy, there are no references to justify keeping the article for it.

Seeing as how the article is very large in the first place also (127 KB) and its contents, it can be assumed that it is not notable to the real world. IAmSasori 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being not notable to "the real world" does not qualify it for deletion. There are many articles that are about fictional locations and people on wikipedia. The reference for this list is the game itself, no different from other lists based on books, movies and television. --Pinkkeith 21:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft. This info is of no use to anyone not playing the games. Ridernyc 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ridernyc. Wikipedia is not a game guide. If someone wants to transwiki to WoWWiki, they can, and if the article is already gone by then, let me know and I'll send you the content. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much as I love this article, it fails the notability guidelines at WP:FICT, and is basically fancruft. Take it to WoWWiki instead. Terraxos 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no reliable primary or secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 11:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't meet WP:RS, fancruft Pilotbob 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.
Here. Based on this, it is not suitable as an actual reason for it's deletion. And those other 3 reasons we could fix, verifiability, neutraility or original research can be fixed with some work. businessman332211 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination, pure fancruft. Burntsauce 18:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Once again the objectors seems to dislike fans. If every article on wiki which was only of interest to 'fans' was deleted, then very many of the technical articles would be the first to go. The reality is that those articles typically described as 'fancruft' are frequently those which have greatest interest to the real world and the greatest numbers of hits. Obviously the justification for the existence of this sub-article is that it contains information too lengthy to fit in the parent article about warcraft, as per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Dealing with fiction Sandpiper 08:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Fiction is a guideline not a policy, I also feel that it is a flawed guideline that contradicts WP:Plot. Ridernyc 14:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also just noticed that the article fails the scetion you cited. This article fails to maintain encyclopedic standards. There is no real world context to this at all.Ridernyc 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be true, but we could easily rewrite it in less than an hour to make it up to standards. businessman332211 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, articles like this is what Wikipedia is good at. We should not be trying to delete stuff like this, but give it proper referencing (which, in this case, can be perfectly valid done from primary sources). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no different than List of The Young and the Restless characters or List of Harry Potter characters. Lists are an excellent way to include basic information on fictional characters that lack sufficient notability for articles of their own. Powers T 15:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potentially near-endless due to the many characters needed to flesh out a game world and no possible references other than playing/reading the work and summarizing it. There isn't any need to have an article with a section for every boss, background character, incidental character, or supporting character in the Warcraft games due to the complete lack of anything to say about the vast, vast majority of them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gamecruft that simply does not conform to the notability standards asserted at WP:N and WP:FICT. There must be thousands of Warcraft gaming sites that would welcome work on such a list, so why bother fighting the out-of-universe notability policies of an encyclopedia? Eusebeus 15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering the hundreds of pages that link and redirect to this list, deleting seems counter-intuitive, particularly if this was the product of former articles being merged and redirected.--Alf melmac 22:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a random check of the links to this article shows that we have hundreds of Warcraft articles that should be up for deletion for the same reasons as this article. Ridernyc 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I think it's a very comprehensive list. It is not violation the "Not a gameguide" policy as it's mentioning nothing about how to play/beat the game. I don't see any other policies it is breaching. A lot of the games on here have (list of characters). For example, halo series has it's own article related to the characters in halo (Which is a very good, and beneficial article). I don't think it should be deleted. There are many articles like this. They are not harming anyone, they are providing great amounts of information, and they are under the video games project. So it's obviously updated, and taken care of. I think it could use some "editing" as some of the characters are useless, and not notable. However I can see it now, this'll lead to some crusade in getting rid of all articles that are like this. A lot of them I find very useless. I really thing this one should be let here. businessman332211 01:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked some of the policies. Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and if you look here carefully. It tells you that deletion should be a last result. There other things we can pursue on this article before the deletion process takes place. Some of the valid things (based on the deletion policy) are cleanup, expert, npov, verify or merge tags. We could easily just add in cleanup, and veify tags. This will get it in the request lists to start the cleanup and verify progress. businessman332211 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Final Fantasy list you link to is a perfect example of why this list needs to go, it is a well written article full of real world context. This has none of that. Ridernyc 11:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Not up to FA standards" is hardly grounds for deletion. The fact that the FF8 article is featured means that it's possible for character articles such as this to be made encyclopedic. Thus, no need to delete. Powers T 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it needs to be up to FA standards. it' needs to meet basic requirements like WP:Plot, not sure why everyone thinks they can just ignore that. Ridernyc 12:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Plot "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies both to stand-alone works, and also to series. A brief plot summary may sometimes be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic. (See also: Wikipedia:Television episodes, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot)." It's needs to have real word context, you can not just write a plot summary about characters. Show me anywhere in this article that covers "sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance." Ridernyc 13:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were holding up the FF8 article as an reason to delete this one. The fact that one article is a FA and another is not is not a reason to delete the latter; it's a reason to improve it to the former's status. Powers T 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although these are all good arguments, can I point out that first, the article will almost certainly be recreated, although perhaps without some of the more obscure characters, one can hope. And second, the main reason the article is so long and cruft-y is because it is itself the result of many other individual character articles merging.--Pharod42 21:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the information is going to be recreated Is reason to keep articles? Second single crufty articles do not combine to make one large non-crufty article. We still have an article that falls short of policy. Ridernyc 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep This article isn't particularly good and I'm not a fan of Warcraft, but it is a very notable game series with a large cast of characters and information on them is undoubtedly valuable to the understanding of related articles. It should be kept and totally rewritten, organized by notability and which games the characters are in citing both primary sources for factual integrity and secondary sources for development and other information. Warcraft fans are numerous and lively, they can accomplish this. - 4.154.236.26 01:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at some of these "characters". I'd like to take a bit of time and point out how inane most of this list is.
    1. Aku'mai is one of several large hydras that are dungeon bosses in World of Warcraft. He has zero dialogue (besides a few inarticulate roars froma generic sound pool), little to no backstory that most players ever see, and is simply a large version of a monster that is frequently seen in generic form elsewhere in the game. He's nothing but an obstacle for players doing a certain dungeon to overcome.
    2. Anetheron is one of several generic demons guarding an important character at one point. He only appears twice because the same battle is in two different games, from different perspectives. Azgalor is similar.
    3. Arator the Redeemer has a conversation with another NPC in an inn in World of Warcraft, and gives the player a quest or two to do. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of characters like this in every single MMORPG ever created. Baine Bloodhoof is similar.
    4. Baron Rivendare is the final boss of one of several dozen dungeons in World of Warcraft. He has little backstory, no dialogue beyond a single scene where he executes an NPC players need to try and save, and again exists only as an obstacle for players to overcome.
    And that's only after doing A and B. About half of this list is just fluff, minor characters of a sort so plentiful and generic that they are quite unlistable. The rest of these characters need to be broken up into lists of each major work, like WC3, the Sunwell Trilogy, the Warcraft manga, and so on. This list as-is is just unworkable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the Pokemon lists. Or are they still an 'exception' to the notability rule?--Nydas(Talk) 08:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
can you move on from the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, yes you can point to 1000's of pages on wikipedia that should not be here we are not talking about them we are talking about this one.Ridernyc 14:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I won't. WP:OTHERSTUFF is just an aid to help people hold contradictory, biased views on what is notable and what isn't. They can target rival fancruft whilst dodging questions about their fancruft.--Nydas(Talk) 21:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You're talking to the person who championed merging the Pokemon character lists, then trimming the lamest ones, and continues to push for further refining of such lists. Also, I've been pushing for the Pokemon species to be merged into lists and dealt with in the most reasonable, concise, and encyclopedic manner possible. If you're looking for hypocrisy, you've got the wrong person.
Basically, this sucks. This is far beyond "List of Pokemon species" into "List of each NPC in the towns of Pokemon Red." At least a Pokemon species appears in at least a half-dozen games; Aku'mai is one of several dozen monsters that use the same design, isn't remarkable in a story or game design or any other fashion, and has no dialogue or story or anything. Baron Rivendare is the same, except he has three lines. This is typical to the content of this list.
The vast, vast majority of this info isn't lending useful context to any article. I don't need to know who Aku'mai is to understand what WOW is, to understand Warcraft's setting or story or game design. Hell, I don't even need to know anything about Aku'mai if I'm running Blackfathom Deeps.
This list is unworkably broad, and would not be a useful tool in writing narrower topical lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore the single-appearace characters. There plenty of characters in this list which have appeared in multiple media, similar to an average Pokemon. And we have twenty-five Pokemon lists, sourced almost entirely from in-game text fragments. It is certain that similar giddy heights of encyclopedic worth could be achieved for this list.--Nydas(Talk) 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
answer, maybe. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ridernyc 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up other similar articles that exist is not always an "Other stuff exists" argument. Sometimes it's an appeal to precedent. Powers T 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
an appeal to precedent would be "article X survived AFD and this is why". Ridernyc 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a winnowed list of characters and brief descriptions on to the Warcraft universe page. Clearly some are notable in that context, so they should be preserved on the main article and supported by external sources. — RJH (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, certainly cannot meet WP:FICT. Doubtful that reliable sources independent of the subject have devoted significant coverage to anything of this list. Doctorfluffy 04:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Kill with more fire. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Warcraft locations[edit]

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

Wnsourced, unnotable gamecruft.

Going over each, this page only has one source, one that isn't considered in the real world.

The article has little to no interest to non-players, as it is unnotable to them.

Finally, it appears to be cruft as it is very descriptive about an in-game location. IAmSasori 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...You are aware that these are in a number of novels, right? --Kizor 03:48, 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. Guantanamo detainee, abundant available sources (including Amnesty, which can hardly be described as a primary source in this matter). This does not prejudice the possibility of merging the information to a more comprehensive article about captives held without trial at Guantanamo. It would be odd if we didn't record information of such significance. --Tony Sidaway 02:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab[edit]

Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article does not express how/why this person is notable or meets WP:BIO. May possibly be a WP:COATRACK to express protests at Guantanamo Bay detainment camp, on which I make no opinion. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search excluding non-RS sources, and excluding .mil U.S. government sites (as they are Primary sources for this case) doesn't show much. This translated Spanish page is trivial at best; he's mentioned in passing. This Amnesty International reference is trivial at best, he's mentioned only in one sentence out of a significantly larger story. Every other search result (there are a couple of word spam sites in there, and another Wikipedia mirror) are not anything. So, we have no sources there. A Google news search, all dates has 0 hits. We're left with not one WP:RS compliant anything with which to build a biographical article about "Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab". Based on that, and WP:BLP1E, Delete on either/or WP:BLP reasoning or WP:N notability reasoning. We can't make an article about the man--no sources. We can't demonstrate notability per our standards. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Lawrence Cohen, and the reasons I have expressed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdullah_Gulam_Rasoul. -- But|seriously|folks  20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletions. —Geo Swan 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons expressed at the other discussions. "Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush" is sufficient to justify the article. The article is sourced objectively, with the different views presented. the summaries of evidence are a suitable approach to sourcing. DGG (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper above well founded arguments. Also, I think W is not a soapbox. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Enough independent sources are present to prove notability. The sources appear to be neutral and broad in scope; if the intent of the article was to push a POV, then the author seems to have failed in that goal. With the exception of the caption tagged as Non-neutral, the article looks good to me. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not need to focus exclusively on an individual to provide useful (Neutral, factual, and verifiable) information about that individual. Neutral, verifiable information exists to document the existance and notability of the subject. In particular, I base my recommendation of Keep on the source (#11, at present) from the United States Department of Justice. The source discusses the court case known as "Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush", which is sufficient to prove notability. If consensus indicates that an article on this individual is not warranted, or does not meet WP:BIO, then I would recommend that the article and its contents be re-tasked as an article focusing on the court actions and events leading to (and, eventually, stemming from) such litigation. I stress, though, that cleanup (even if extensive enough to properly re-task the article) is not a justification for deletion. The closing admin may see fit to keep the article, with the caveat that it be edited into a more acceptable form - and that would be easily accomplished. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the subject still does not pass the BIO qualifications for notability, and this is still in violation of WP:BLP1E as well. • Lawrence Cohen 23:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy you cite recommends, with emphasis, to "Cover the event, not the person". With all due respect, would not retasking the article to focus on a notable court case involving this individual conform exactly to that policy? Further, if such revision is warranted (as it would appear to be), then deleting the article would be the absolute worst possible step toward accomplishing that task. My recommendation was to retain the article and revise it as you seem to recommend (i.e. per WP:BLP1E, focusing on the event or chain of events, not the individual). Once the article is no longer a biography, the dictates of WP:BLP and WP:BIO do not apply. Though I disagree that the individual is non-notable, I concede that his notability is quite weak. Revising the article in the manner you suggest would retain the acceptable information dealing with court proceedings and legal issues for which the subject is notable, while eliminating BLP concerns - and I believe that option to be preferable to deletion. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abdulmalik Abdulwahhab Al-Rahabi v. George W. Bush might be a reasonable move target, should the article be revised to focus on the court proceedings as recommended above. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.
I did my best to comply with all policies. I think I did an okay job.
I think that the details of what we know about Abdul Wahab's life merit coverage here.
  • He has, after all, disappeared from the official record.
  • He has, after all, had a writ of habeas corpus submitted before the US justice system. His habeas corpus has been activiely debated, for years. That merits coverage.
  • Is there room for improvement in this article? Sure. More about his habeas corpus for one. But having room for improvement is not grounds for deletion.
Cheers! Geo Swan 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after close examination, I do not feel that this one article is a WP:COATRACK article (although close to it). Burntsauce 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are about Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab specifically? There are none. Saying keep without demonstrating it cannot result in a close of "keep". Please detail the sources you are basing keep on? What independent coverage has Abd al Malik Abd al Wahab received? • Lawrence Cohen 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and smells like an oldWP:COATRACK. --Brewcrewer 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lawrence Cohen's excellent detective work and analysis. Doctorfluffy 08:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, appears notable due to lawsuit. Well-sourced article. Bearian 19:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Rogers and Don Peppers[edit]

Martha Rogers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Don Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Nom - non-notable academic biography. Only claim to notability is a non-notable set of business texts. Rklawton 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete ^demon[omg plz] 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Shark tooth Gregorio[edit]

Captain Shark tooth Gregorio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I believe this is a hoax. I could not find any references on the web to confirm the existence of the subject yet the article claims "José was knighted from his royal and lordly ties. His exploits were fairly known and made him a hero to the Portuguese". NeilN 20:15, 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Wolverton[edit]

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

Prodded with a concern of lack of notability and conflict of interest but I thought it would be better off here instead. No vote. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 24. Hut 8.5 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can provide verifiable sources of meeting WP:BIO. I cannot find significant news coverage, indications of awards, etc. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable person from the 'pedia. Google throws up nothing to indicate he's done anything to warrant his inclusion. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the person does not meet notability requirements. From what I can tell, the main contributor, which is him, is really making prominent the smaller items he's done. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the others. Burntsauce 18:16, 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--JForget 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orlino swing[edit]

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

Neologism, prod remove by author. Claim of notability made, cannot be verified Wildthing61476 19:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Author has changed page to read "post set for deletion", possible speedy due to author's request? Wildthing61476 13:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, term does not show when googled. --Pinkkeith 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Orlino swing is a slang term that is gaining popularity. I dont see why you would delete cool new phrases before they become universal. I am an equity trader in North Carolina and the term is frequently used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.232.130 (talk • contribs)

KeepI trade for a living and I have Orlino Swings almost daily, it is a very common term in day trading.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.117.232.130 (talk • contribs)

  • DeleteThe day trading community must not post to the Internet very much; zero Google hits suggestsno reliable sources to indicate notability. as protologism. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment As you stated above "I dont see why you would delete cool new phrases before they become universal". This is EXACTLY why we do. A phrase has to have notability through reliable sources to show it is in common usage. As for the link to Trader Daily, unfortunately I can't find anywhere that they used this phrase. Wildthing61476 20:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC

Keep This is in fact a term used in day trading although it is not written about due to the fact it is slang, but non the less a term used with an increasing amount of regularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYdaytrader77 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete belongs on urban dictionary dot com, not on wikipedia. Mindraker 20:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, the only Paul Orlino in Google is a high school graduate from 2001, hardly a "grizzled" old trader. Corvus cornix 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk, another attempt to legitimate a protologism using Wikipedia. JuJube 21:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cool neologism that gets 0 ghits? WP:NOT. It is an Encyclopedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author has blanked the page and replaced it with "post set for deletion". I've reverted it as there is reasonable doubt that he wants it deleted for now, but I've told him to tag the page as {{db-author}} if that is the case. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 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 Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW.Capitalistroadster 02:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asharid-apal-Ekur[edit]

Asharid-apal-Ekur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Weakly Fails WP:BIO, google search only came up with 87 sources, most not related to topic. Tiptoety 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not entirely certain that a king of ancient Assyria would fall under WP:BIO - he's not really giving interviews to teh media these days, or anything, so reliable sources may not be readily available. However, he is listed in a number of places [3] [4], [5] (as well as others) as being a king - and I would say a king gets a free pass even if he did only last two years. Scholarly research may turn up more about him, but even if not, the stub is probably a good idea for keeping the timeline sorted. Keep Tony Fox (arf!) 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO considers the following notable: "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." A king would be at the highest part of that. Smashville 21:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a bare minimum, all of the following criteria must be met in order for a person to be deemed notable:
  1. The text of an article should include enough information to explain why the person is notable. External arguments via a talk page or Afd debate page are not part of the article itself, and promises on those pages to provide information are not as valid as the existence of the information on the article page itself.
  2. If the subject is living, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be followed.
  3. The person must have been the subject of published[6] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.[7]
    • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may need to be cited to establish notability.
    • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[8]

Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Tiptoety 00:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part of WP:BIO preceding that quoted above by Smashville says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards..." In any case an internet search by no means covers all secondary sources on recondite topics like this. Johnbod 01:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Kings of notable empires are pretty much automatically notable in my opinion. 129.89.68.218 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per those above - a ridiculous nomination. If there really is a problem under WP policy with this article, which I very much doubt but can't be bothered to research, then the policy should be changed. Johnbod 21:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Smashville for tracking down the relevant bit of policy. Johnbod 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. Speedy keep, even. 87 g-hits are a lot for someone dead 3000 years. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think subject does meet WP:BO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, Strongest Keep. He was the recognized king of a recognized empire. We consider most pretenders to thrones notable...so we would definitely consider an actual king notable. (Lack of) Google hits should never be used as an argument for deletion. Smashville 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You cannot have redlinks in lineages of kings of major ancient empires. LessHeard vanU 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. GRBerry 14:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Karim Saeed Pasha[edit]

Abdul Karim Saeed Pasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced one-line biography; I guess being an Emir in the sense of king is notable, but it's unsourced and no indication that the position held is in the nature of a king rather than as a priestly title and most preachers aren't notable without more coverage in 3rd party RSes Carlossuarez46 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also nominating:

Carlossuarez46 19:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless someone can show these meet. WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to Keep to avoid my bias against the unfamiliar. Hopefully, this can be sourced and expanded. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both are notable as leaders of a notable Muslim denomination, but the articles here are wholly inadequate. On the whole keep & hope for improvement. If deleted, proper recreation should be possible. Johnbod 21:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable as a leader of one of two branches of Ahmadiyya Islam. http://www.aaiil.org/text/biog/biog/abdulkarimsaeedpasha.shtml T Rex | talk 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'delete as essentially empty. No objection to re-creation is there is actually some information provided--it might possibly justify notability. But i don't see how why can keep these in the present state. DGG (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If we give the aricle time to expand by not deleting it now, perhaps it will turn into a decent article. On the other hand, if we delete it now, we may discourage and prevent its expansion. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:16, 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 Throw it in the vault. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sands of Oblivion[edit]

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

Delete some say films cannot be speedy deleted, so this unsourced one-liner about a nn film released or to be released this year is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 19:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CRYSTAL - too speculative. --Gwern (contribs) 19:30 25 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Weak keep. IMDB says it's been released - it's a mediocre made-for-TV movie. It's even got its own web page on the TV network's site. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable TV movie. I don't know why people even bother creating 8-word articles like this. Creating stubs is one thing, but this doesn't even amount to a complete sentence. Why even bother to add this to Wikipedia? Crazysuit 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, the above argument is not quite valid: The article was originally created with a longer plot description (badly written, and later deleted by someone), plus a couple of the actors mentioned. Oceanh 02:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete Being released is not criteria for an article. Imdb page does not support claim of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) I find no indication of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:22, 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. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and Duck Talk[edit]

Chicken and Duck Talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete another unsourced article about a film with no indication as to notability. Carlossuarez46 19:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Keep no claim of adequate notability (film awards nomination). JJL 19:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominated for but did not win an award. Not notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment still see no indication of meeting notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been speedy deletion. Muntuwandi 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For the record, direcor and actor Michael Hui has already a Wikipedia article, and this movie is referenced in that article. Also the Hong Kong Film Awards are described as "the most prestigious film awards in Hong Kong and among the most respected in East Asia.", according to Wikipedia. Obtaining two nominations for this award might indicate notability at least in Asia. The director (Michael Hui) is certainly notable, as one of his other films is listed among the "Best 100 Chinese Motion Pictures". Oceanh 02:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Expansion: I tried to expand the stub a little bit. Noted that four other articles already 'links' to this article, so it's no orphan. Will not cast any "votes" though, but leave that to the experts on Asian film. Oceanh 04:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expansion thats my vote--Zingostar 17:32, 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 splat! Let's pretend 9 November is here already; speedily deleted as a context-free NN bio. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Smith[edit]

I think this article should be deleted, for there are not articles for each individual professional irish dancer; only the main dancers have articles on Wikipedia. --Breadsticks.rock 19:08, 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.

The result was Speedy delete. CSD A7. — Scientizzle 21:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

신현규[edit]

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

I don't think this person passes the notability criteria. -- Prince Kassad 18:58, 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 closed. DS 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sancho de Leόn[edit]

Article created by a user with links to the hoaxish House of Camino. I can find no Google hits for "Rodrigo Sanchez de Veloso" and no reliable sources for a "Count of Veloso" or a "Conde de Veloso" or "Conte de Veloso". Corvus cornix 18:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --John 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as hoax, jsut like other AfD about this editor's contribs. ThuranX 20:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube 21:33, 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 Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family History Society[edit]

Family History Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced listcruft, almost entirely red-linked, and unlikely to become anything else. ^demon[omg plz] 18:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the links, but keep and expand. Family history societies are important in the hobby and profession of genealogy. I would suggest moving it to Family history society, though. Corvus cornix 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any information that might be in this article would be better served in Geneaology. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article certainly needs expanding, but these are organizations which, while individually quite small, in the UK alone have a combined membership of probably getting on for 100,000. By all means delete the links to those without a page on WP. And BTW, the listing is not unsourced - there are links to definitive sources at the foot of the page. --Pfold 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve (if possible). Jeff Knaggs 10:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a relevant class of associations, and can be discussed further. The term is generic, and I the title should be Family history society to avoid the impression it is about a specific one. The links are appropriate--a list of noteworthy societies, probably many of which could be turned into articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Most of these societies are quite notable in their own right as organisations, some of them having international membership. And I agree with the unsigned comment above, that if the redlinks were blue, there would be no question as to their existence. -- Roleplayer 18:06, 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 transwiki and delete. Now it's available at b:Fortran/Fortran examples. MaxSem 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortran code examples[edit]

Fortran code examples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article seems to be a list of unrelated examples of Fortran code, Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. --Hq3473 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To say it in another way: the code samples show how the oldest programming language had evolved over several decades. This provides some (imperfect) insight on how does the evolution of procedural languages looks like. Theoretically, WP could have a synthetizing article about such evolution but in practice there would be no agreement among editors (comparing computer languages can raise a lot of emotional heat). Article name may be changed to reflect this role, that it is not just a dump of examples to be copied. Pavel Vozenilek 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Vozenilek. This is a case where increased capacity helps WP. These examples are useful as resource to understanding the language. A print encyclopedia would not have the space to accommodate these examples, but that doesn't make them non-encyclopedic. As someone learning about FORTRAN I find them essential to learning about the subject. Hagan jared 02:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 non-notable constructed language, lacking any reliable sources at all. Bearian 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sambahsa-mundialect[edit]

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

Recently constructed language being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. From the comments on the talk page, an appropriate treatment might be to redirect to Modern Indo-European and mention it briefly there. -- RHaworth 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, do not merge. A years-old constructed language created by a well-known linguistic researcher might have a stab at notability, if it'd been picked up by reliable sources. This, as a three-month old language created by someone who appears to be an amateur linguist (I can't find anything that suggests otherwise), falls significantly short. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • elete-day ot-nay otable-nay. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I strongly oppose WP:N as a criterion, for reasons given at WP:NNOT. However, I support WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and this article appears to be gray-lined on those points. Merge to Modern Indo-European or similar. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article makes no claim for notability of subject and has no references to reliable third-party sources. -- Schaefer (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google shows up nearly no independent websites about this language. Plus, Slovio was reverted a few days earlier, although there's much more reason to include it, as it's older and quite well-known among people who know something about IAL (didn't want to say "conlang experts"). This conlang is far less notable than Slovio, which at least was a borderline case. — N-true 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a flavour of merge. If languages like Slovio and Folkspraak can't have articles (and don't even deserve to be mentioned, according to some!), then I can't imagine this language would be an exception. That's by no means an assessment of the language itself, which may very well be an excellent piece of work. But yes, I can only repeat the arguments I used on the talk page: original research, notability issues and vanity. But, although merging it into Modern Indo-European or somesuch would go a bit too far, I can imagine this project would at least be worth mentioning as a sister/cousin project. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no merge - No evidence of coverage in any non-self published sources. Otherwise, it's not clear what would stop me from creating Aagtbfoua-dialect, blogging it, and then "earning" a merge or redirect to a notable article. IMHO, a delete+merge (or redirect-merge, since we don't delete if we're merging) is only appropriate if the subject has trivial coverage in verifiable, reliable sources. If/when we have enough verifiable, NPOV info to write an article, we can write an article. - Aagtbdfoua 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copied from the talk page:
Sellamat! I am actually the author of the page and, as such, I don't take a stand. From the comments above, I suppose I was misled by the fact that auxlangs with no speaker have an article (ex: Europaio whose friendly creator adviced me to publish my work on the Net; not to mention "fantasy auxlangs" like Wenedyk of our friend Jan). I would just recommend that guidelines for deletion should be redefined, especially about notability. In general, people on the street have only heard about esperanto while "auxlangers" communicate nowadays through the Net (for auxlangs are by nature a matter of international concern) and have thus seen a lot of projects. Concerning articles by third parties, don't forget that the ability to make journalists or scholars pay attention to his/her project is not revealing of the quality of the language itself, as Jan has already said. (I'd like to add that I did not create the language to go on Wikipedia, for I began working on it when Wikipedia did not yet exist :-))
If auxlangs like Slovio don't deserve an article, I don't bother about deletion nor merging of the page.
Do what you have to do.
Best regards. Mundialecter 18:34, 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. Hut 8.5 07:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Younan[edit]

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

This individual fails to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria. The article's main claim to notability is that the subject's theories have gotten a lot of notice on a forum, and the article goes on to explicitly state that his work has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. There are no sources listed, and I couldn't find any reliable sources online either. Karanacs 16:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination: if anything, he is only 'famous' for trying to sell non-notable Church of the East manuscripts. — Gareth Hughes 17:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -Drdisque 17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:BIO, very few to no results from google. Tiptoety 18:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I could find nothing that supports meeting WP:BIO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Not notable, article is a split-off of Aramaic primacy. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:32 27 Oct, 2007 (UTC)


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

The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eclerx[edit]

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

Not notable. Has been speedied twice, and the author complained. Rschen7754 (T C) 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article has yet to demonstrate the notability of the company. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite coaching, no notability demonstrated - Toddstreat1 17:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The one source that is listed in the article states that the company was the source of the article. Toddstreat1 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. I see no assertion of meeting notability. Frankly, this reads more like an advert than an Encylopedia article. lacks verifiable sourcing and may be an example of WP:NOT. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. clearly just an advert, non-notable. Doctorfluffy 22:16, 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 Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Long Semester[edit]

Another Long Semester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable album by a non-notable artist, whose own article is tagged for speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an album of a deleted musician. And so tagged. Spellcast 17:01, 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 all --Haemo 01:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Peace Institute[edit]

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

This article and some related pages were nominated for deletion in September 2006, with no consensus reached. All seem to relate to Chika Sylva-Olejeme, a Nigerian man of questionable notability. His chief claim to fame seems to be an "appointment" as an "ambassador of peace" by the Universal Peace Federation, run by Sun Myung Moon, but our article on the Universal Peace Federation says these "ambassadors" are volunteers, not appointed diplomats.

These articles all seem to reference each other – Sylva-Olejeme developed Post Philosophy, whose branch is Christian Post Philosophy, which led to the International Peace Institute, which developed the Peace Conservation System, which obeys the Universal Peace Protocol, which backs the peace creed, which is based on Post Philosophy. It's a maze of pseudo-notability. There are about four ELs, used by almost all of these articles, to pages at UNESCO – but two are '404 Not Found' (dead), one is to a kids art program, and one is a proposal to have a project of some sort that either hasn't happened or won't happen.

This is a textbook example of using Wikipedia to establish credibility where little exists. They are mostly unreferenced, except to each other, and the third-party references are of questionable quality and relevance. Begone with them. KrakatoaKatie 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Included with this nomination are:

Universal Peace Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peace Conservation System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
International Creed for Peace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ICP Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Post Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Christian Post Philosophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and
Chika Sylva-Olejeme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all as nominator. KrakatoaKatie 16:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. -Drdisque 17:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep all I don't understand why there is a second deletion all of this issues where adressed on the first attempt, i think the talk pages are the right places to deal with this, making it a case of speedy deletion is funny and i think it shows niether maturity nor proper investigation on the subject finally i don't think User:KrakatoaKatie has enough information to make up this process. Wikipedia should not be a place of hate especially for such uninformed hate actions.Motegole 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC) 20:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  • Delete per above. This appears to be a house of straw. I'm afraid I'm missing any indication of notability in these. I am puzzled by Motegole's hate remark. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. How is it hatefull to say a subject lacks notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep all i don't have any issue about deleting an article that lacks notability but what about if it does not lack notability? that is why the right place is at the talk pages i have contributed a lot in these articles but i refuse to defend the infomation on a deletion log, remember things published on the internet are not the only source of notability, just like i said earlier this is funny and immature it lacks the drive to improve knowledge. Discuss it in greater detail not simply go to the deletion option, i think to delete an article above a year in wikipedia for lack of Notability new evidence of the original facts being false should be provided and on the talk pages too.Motegole 03:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Motegole, you don't get two !votes, just one. You can comment as many times as you like, but only one keep/delete per editor is allowed, so your second 'speedy keep all' has been stricken. Wikipedia has a deletion policy which clearly indicates that this is indeed the designated place and format to discuss deletions. If you choose not to "defend the information on a deletion log", that's your prerogative. Lastly, please be civil in your comments to me and to others who participate in these discussions. It is difficult to hear reasoning if it comes with a personal attack. - KrakatoaKatie 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no one gets a vote this is a discussion not a vote.Ridernyc 06:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment i am sorry KrakatoaKatie if this has been a personal attack, i regret the use of any language that has offended you and just as User:Ridernyc has pointed out it is not about votes it is a discussion i have signed my name each time it does not stop the Deletion if this is the proper procedue in fact discussions on the talk pages as well does not save an article, an article that deserves to be deleted will be deleted Motegole 07:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - there is a paucity of reliable sources as outlined by the nominator. What few references are provided in the article do not constiture reliable sources. -- Whpq 16:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, should have been deleted the first time when two of the three keeps were from an IP and a new account. Agree with Whpq. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment may i direct this discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion policy especially (Alternatives to deletion) and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions especially (Arguments without arguments), we are talking multiple articles here, where do you start to critize of defend up to eight different wikipedia articles. honestly i don't think this discussion has developed enough to even consider the systemic bias i still think that in the relevant pages justice will be done to each article individually and on its own merit Motegole 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I will then expand my reply. I reviewed each article in the nomination, so this is not a case of just looking at one article and assuming the rest are the same. I did not simply accept the word of the nominator. I conducted Google searches to look for references for each article. Although many result are turned up, I cannot find any that meet the definition of reliable sources. So the "delete" from me has been considered before registering the opinion. I am quite open to a "keep" and could be persuaded by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. But such sources are not provided in the articles, nor was I able to find them myself. And from what I can see, I don't see evidence that such sources could be found. As such, I would maintain a position of "delete". -- Whpq 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too looked at each article, considered whether or not there was notability or verifiability. I did not find any reason to not delete the bunch. I also feel there is a stridency to assert as notable that which is not. To have so many articles essentially about the same not notable subject with a twist to each so strenuously defended only heightens that sense. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find anything in Google News Archives to source this with. --Pleasantville 18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I'm no fan of these multiple nominations--but this is an appropriate use, as there does not seem a single one of them that has any notability or any real sourcing. Not even the bio article, which would normally be the one to merge into--there is no demonstration of any notability at all. The prior AfD was no-consensus and a full year ago. Now is a good time to reach consensus, as we seem to be doing. DGG (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think thats why some people sometimes consider wikipedia as simply activity of a mob, where research is of little importance, and i suspect thats why wikipedia itself condems the goggle test[9], and why there is the systemic bias that accepts that sometimes notability is relative especially the question of how much evidence is required to achieve or demonstrate notability and to who. see "I've never heard of it" [10]. Anyway i think i would be more interested in the outcome this discussion, at least we now all know what is at stake. if we rightly reach a delete consensus it will be absolutly fine with me Motegole 12:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you could provide verifiable sourcing that supports subject's meeting WP:BIO, it would be a stronger argument to "keep" than railing about the "unfairness of Wikipedia." This is an argument sometimes used in AfD's by creators of articles that are about a non notable subject where meeting WP:BIO has not been proven. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thank you Dlohcierekim i assume you have heard me suggest that the articles should the trashed on the talk pages, i am not trying to be difficult but i just don't think here is proper. i am ready to post unto wikipedia formal documentation including UNESCO Diplomatic Notes (Note Vabales} Nigerian Goverment Diplomatic Notes, letters from the UK Paliament to both mr Olejeme and the international Peace Institute since 2000 notwithstanding that Mr Olejeme is a Track II diplomat see Track II diplomacy

[11] [12] [13] these information are not posted on the Internet and are not meant to be. Motegole 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I fail to see how these articles support notability for any of the articles that have been nominated for deletion. -- Whpq 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dear Whpq what i did was to refer to Track II diplomacy as agured on the bio page by user Kobrown [14] i was not using those references to deal with the question of notability please take the whole comment in context.

my emphasis is that a talk page is already running since 10 October 2006.

before i forget try to consider notability as worthy of notice WP:BIO [15] "Within Wikipedia, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"." Motegole 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply' - the main thrust of discussion here has been the lack of independent reliable sources about the subjects. The articles really lack that. Searching for them have turned up none. And requests to provide them have us just talkng around in circles. Quite simply put, reliable sources need to be provided. -- Whpq 12:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment thank you Whpq, with the discussion so far let me deal with Verifiability and reliable source issue in Bio article i think a mention of Mr Olejeme at United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO National Steering Committee meeting held on Monday, February 6, 2006 (14.00 – 17.30) Council Room, Society of Antiquaries of London, Burlington House, Piccadilly, London W1J[16]is verifiable and it is a reliable source. mention of mr Olejeme in an award carried out by the Mayor of the London Borough of Haringey, North London, 28th January 2006 Hornsey Moravian Church, Priory Road, Hornsey.[17]is verifiable and it is a reliable source.What i expect is for additional information to be requested on the talk pages which is ongoing see[18] notice how direct the recourse to the talk is advised. that explains my initial remark that the process is funny. we should be talking about the Encyclopedia content, Verifiability and reliable sourcing where necessary, for example the nominator in his intro actually said that "His chief claim to fame seems to be an "appointment" as an "ambassador of peace" by the Universal Peace Federation, run by Sun Myung Moon but our article on the Universal Peace Federation says these "ambassadors" are volunteers, not appointed diplomats" this argument you may agree has been adressed by the wikipedia policy that doesn't consider fame but "worthy of notice" and the talk page on the Bio article reference to Track II diplomacy. There are of course a lot other consideration which i probably do not know and i am open to learn. Once more let me say this upfront i dont intend to disrespect any one with this comment. There's a lot issues we have dealt in this disscussion i suppose, i am happy about it, i hope we can arrive to what we are looking for. Motegole 14:14, 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 — fails WP:CORP --Haemo 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Houston jewelry[edit]

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

This article is about a small chain of jewelry stores in Texas. The article primarily traces the history of the chain's expansion, but there is no claim of notability, no reliable sources are cited, and I haven't been able to find any sources beyond directory listings and an obituary for one of the founders. I think this fails WP:NOTABILITY. Karanacs 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page DOES NOT FAIL. It is a narrative about a little recorded industry, ethnic group, and period of rapid economic development of a largely frontier part of the US. The style needs cleaning the firm is notable for it size, evolution, and age. Lastly it is the ONLY catalog showroom company to successfully convert from a catalog show room format [thing Best Products, Service Merchandise] into a guild jewelry & fine gift store in the nation. Brendall's tried and went out of business, so did Luria's and many others. In the jewelry industry to survival of Houston Jewelry has been noted many times in the trades as unique experience. See this article http://66.201.106.163/portal_FullMazalUbracha.asp?id=25332 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex495 (talk • contribs)

It is a narrative, and a fascinating one. Links to the mentions in the trades might be helpful, as some seem mention in the trades as significant. They might provide verifiable sources of notability. Maybe. There is no indication in the article of meeting WP:CORP. As it stands, it's just a personal narrative. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Information from Reference USA in NOT always accurate, neither is Dun & Brandstreet, however county court records, census records, and secretary of state records as well as original records are VERY accurate. Rex495 06:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)KeepRex495rex495[reply]

Just a note, Rex495 appears to be connected to the corporation in question[19]. Karanacs 18:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What we need is an indication of meeting WP:CORP. I could not find any. If anyone, particularly those who have contributed to this article could show meeting WP:CORP, I can change to keep. Admins, please hold off on closing this for now. I want to take another look. I'm at work, and won't have an opportunity till tomorrow at the earliest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having reread the article, I am convinced that it is a fascinating family history. However, I see no indication of meeting inclusion criteria under WP:CORP or WP:BIO, unless being robbed by Bonnie and Clyde conveys notability. If so, switch to keep; otherwise, delete. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, even if the Bonnie and Clyde fact led to notability, which I don't think it does, a quick Google search seems to imply such a statement does not satisfy WP:V. As such, it seems the article is non-notable. SorryGuy 01:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Bust a cap in it. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers in Arms (Young Jeezy & Akon album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brothers in Arms (Young Jeezy & Akon album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Future album with no sources verifying its existence. One IP even claimed it was a hoax. Prod removed without explanation. Spellcast 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete--JForget 01:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth studio album[edit]

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

As much as I would love Blur to release an eighth album, the facts (and the media) stand that Blur is currently not planning to do so. Thus, this article is pure crystalballing taken to its logical extreme. TheLetterM 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - pure Crystalballery -Drdisque 17:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see a single word here that actually points to an album being planned. Also, even if the article is kept, the title needs to be changed: "Eighth studio album" is only a unique title by luck. A more appropriate title would be "Blur's eighth studio album" or "Eighth studio album (Blur)". Zetawoof(ζ) 19:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - No release date, no third party announcement even. Gdavid3 20:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't even crystalballery, this is just pure wishful thinking. And Wikipedia is not a star to wish upon, sorry. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal balling and wishful thinking until a time where the album's title, producer, first single, and specific release date can be verified by reliable sources independant of the band or record company. -- saberwyn 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and Zetawoof. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:12, 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 to Scientology controversy#Allegations of mistreatment of members. --bainer (talk) 06:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Lottick[edit]

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

Non-notable person committed non-notable suicide. Article is inherently POV as his only mention in media is as a take-off point for a POV piece attacking Scientology and, IMO, is more of a journalist styling than any inherent notability for Lottick. Note that the basis of notability mentioned in the article is "controversy" but there was no actual (notable) controversy over the suicide; no charges filed, etc. Please do not be impressed by the number of references as there is a degree of duplication, triviality, and inclusion of non-related notable issues such as the fight between the Church of Scientology and Time Magazine. Note also that the large number of links to the article is due to inclusion in the Scientology template, a very questionable inclusion given the total lack of relative importance. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Scientologist but I rarely nominate articles for deletion and only those few that really, IMO, do not belong here. Thank you for your time. Justanother 15:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Scientology controversy. I agree that the article has serious problems, but I also think the information is notable and deserves a place here, even if not its own page. – Scartol · Talk 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. The article as stands is probably a case of WP:BLP1E, but could make up a small mention in the related article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Article is notable, and well-sourced to WP:RS cites in proper formatting. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    • Also an interesting note, I don't know how many times an article that was deemed fit by the WP:DYK folks to be featured in the Did you know? section on the Main Page has gotten deleted, but for this article's appearance there, see March 20, 2007. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
      • On that, you and I both know that DYK is not about the quality of the article to any great degree, it is mainly about getting 1500 more characters in the encyclopedia. If I had caught this when it was up for nom as DYK and tagged it as the one-sided or non-notable or whatever then it would not have made DYK. Let's simply judge the article on its merits. --Justanother 12:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • As you wish, I just thought it should be noted here, in case other people didn't know about the DYK. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 12:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
          • There have been at least a few cases I know of where DYKs were later deleted, generally based on non-notability. I'm not going to review all 180 archives to find out just how many, though. John Carter 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing admin - If the consensus of this AfD does end up being to merge, please do not delete the article's history when you merge it, so that we can use it to merge to the proper article. Also, as a comment for this discussion, if we are going the way of the merge, probably the article on The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power would be more appropriate to merge to, then Scientology controversy. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 04:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The article subject is notable because of the tragic events caused by the cofs in this person's life. It is NPOV, verifiable and reliably sourced. This article definitely belongs in Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 10:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Subject seems to have been discussed in Time, Reader's Digest, and the St. Petersburg Times, which would seem to me to be sufficient to establish notability. Having said that, I can see how it is possible the article may never see much improvement over its current state, and on that basis can agree to a merge if that's the way the dicussion goes. But the content seems to be supported by enough sources to meet notability criteria. John Carter 13:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is a good solution as Lottick has zero notability on his own and only has relevance as part of so-called "Scientology controversy". That lack of notability in and of himself inevitably leads to this being somewhat of a WP:COATRACK article --Justanother 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Subject is notable. It was covered in a large piece done in Time magazine. Also caused a $416 million lawsuit to be filed by the church of scientology against Time Magazine. Article is well researched. It's also an appropriate length. Lastly the article is NPOV. I don't see any POV pushing in the article at all. Everything is fact in the article and is well cited. Elhector 19:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the center of what became a very notable discussion he is notable. The reliability of the sourcing is impeccable, and make for WP:N by any reasonable view of it.DGG (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not making any characterizations here at this AfD, but in light of Justanother (talk · contribs)'s comment above: "In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Scientologist but I rarely nominate articles for deletion and only those few that really, IMO, do not belong here." - I think that it is relevant to point out prior related discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) and at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), both of which are mentioned and related in a current ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Athaenara. Check out the discussions if you like and make your own judgements. Thank you. (I let Athaenara (talk · contribs) know that I was referencing her WP:RFA discussion here, via a note on her talk page.) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
cough cough, and here is the "helpful" critic of Scientology to perhaps imply that Justanother is a hypocrite or something?? --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons noted above. (I personally find the suggestion that this was a "non-notable suicide" offensive, though that is not my reason for voting to keep.) --Modemac 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of getting your panties in a bunch, Modemac (why is it always the Scientology critic that takes exception), why not just WP:AGF and assume that I meant it exactly the way it is stated - that there was nothing notable about the suicide that would warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. I am, of course, sensitive to the tragic aspects, especially as a father myself. If I wanted to be overly sensitive, I would be more "offended" that Justanother (me) said that his life was non-notable. --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Justanother is a great guy but he needs to watch his expressions sometimes. Steve Dufour 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will not vote on this AfD since I am taking an indefinite break from Project Scientology articles. However I would like to mention that there are about 50,000 Scientologists in the USA and the suicide rate in this county is about 5 in 100,000 people per year. One suicide is not all that notable, although very sad of course. (The rate of suicide for Scientologists seems to be somewhat lower than the national average BTW.) Steve Dufour 22:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, did you obtain statistics for scientologist suicides from a reference, or are you speculating?--Fahrenheit451 02:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The famous anti-Scientology website "whyaretheydead?" lists about 30 or so Scientologist suicides. This is far fewer than would be expected over the 50 years of Scientology history. BTW it looks like I might be coming back to the project soon. Steve Dufour 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, you base your conclusion on thirtysome listed suicides on that particular website. I know of three suicides in the cofs that never made it to that website. I am curious why you assume that low number is accurate.--Fahrenheit451 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know of 4 suicides of CofS members that are not listed on that site. 3 were former friends and 1 was a family member. Of the 4 I know the 1 that was one of my family member was the only one that didn't blame CofS in there suicide note. Elhector 23:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a little trouble with that, Hector. I have 30 years in Scientology and personally know of only one suicide by a Scientologist maybe 5 - 10 years ago, a friend I had known since I became involved. Even F451 says that he "knows of" three more, not that they were his friends. Don't really want to call you a liar (and I am not) but that you know four seems like a major statistical exceedance. --JustaHulk 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been invited back to the project so I will cast my vote of "delete". The young man's story is sad but he is not really notable even if the anti-Scientologists want to use him for their purposes. These are the same people who expressed the hope that Tom Cruise's baby would be born deformed. Steve Dufour 04:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find the implication that editors in favour of keeping the article are "the same people who expressed the hope that Tom Cruise's baby would be born deformed" to be extremely offensive. AndroidCat 16:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Personally, I am comparatively uninvolved in Scientology, and (I hate to admit) never even heard or saw anything which led me to think that anyone had ever expressed such views about Cruise's baby. Frankly, though, I have to agree that some almost certainly did, and I have no reason to doubt Steve's statement above to a degree. I agree that Steve may have been casting the net a bit wide in his comments above, and that such generalities, particularly on such unpleasant subjects, should be avoided. However, I can also understand that seeing such comments expressed in the first place is probably at least as offensive, particularly on religious grounds as is the case in this instance, and that it might be understandable that someone vent on it once in a while, even if we would all regret it later. By the way, I'd like to welcome Steve back to the project. Like I said, I don't know Scientology that well myself, and think we need as many knowledgeable editors on the subject as possible to try to preserve the objectivity of all the relevant content. John Carter 16:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • John, see this page. The webmaster of that page has edited Wikipedia but I have not seen him around lately. But I am sure Steve refers more to the general group of alt.religion.scientology regulars that we do have around here always and the general tone of ARS. --JustaHulk 03:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope Steve's comment above does not have the taint of provocation, particularly that sort of provocation conceived and encouraged by a vested interest with habit of COI editing. His statement, "I have been invited back to the project so I will cast my vote of "delete"." is most curious.--Fahrenheit451 21:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, there are probably Scientologists who wish bad things for Scientology critics. That is wrong too. Steve Dufour 12:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ρх₥α 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Name of the Band is Cowboy Mouth[edit]

The Name of the Band is Cowboy Mouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Track listing of as yet unreleased album DVD. Move information to Cowboy Mouth discography which contains track listings of albums by same band. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a film of a concert, not an album, of a notable band. Frog47 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I had missed the fact that this is a DVD and not a CD. Nevertheless, in my opinion it fails to meet the notability criteria either for films or for music. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything wrong with albums (and DVDs) having their own articles. The discography article is only there because the album articles haven't been written yet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it passes the notability for films..."The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Clearly all of the musicians are notable, the first dvd of their careers is a major part of their careers, etc. It also passes the notability for music as the band is notable and one of the songs has charted. This article was put on afd literally 2 minutes after creation when it was just a track listing; now the article is clearly more than that. Frog47 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Not sure what the two above keep !votes are actually based on, but albums, films, etc, are not automatically notable just becase they're been released. Crazysuit 19:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the "Albums" section of WP:MUSIC. Smashville 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That says may have notability. However, this has not even been released yet and there is no assurance of inherited notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "may have notability". I believe it would be the burden of those arguing to delete, then, to prove lack of notability. Smashville 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you believe wrong, the burden of proof is on the creator of the article, or the keep !voters, to prove notability. If they fail to show notability, the article gets deleted. Simple.Crazysuit 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How so? If the policy says "it may be notable", then it is up to those arguing for deletion to prove the lack of notability of an existing article. It's a DVD/album by a notable band. Smashville 14:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a notable band. A quick google search shows plenty of third party reviews of their albums, therefore there probably will be of this DVD. It has a firm release date, less than a month away. One of the musicians, Vance DeGeneres, is notable for more than just Cowboy Mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdavid3 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry forgot to sign Gdavid3 20:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Popular regional band, there will definitely be third party references to this DVD on the internet. If it is deleted, do not mark it as permanently so so it can be created after the release date when there is third party citations available. --Vanamar 23:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, currently non-notable as there doesn't appear to be verifiable sources at the moment so it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does pass the notability for films though..."The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Clearly all of the musicians are notable, the first dvd of their careers is a major part of their careers, etc. Frog47 16:42, 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. CitiCat ♫ 01:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Francis William Fielding White[edit]

Francis William Fielding White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Brian0324 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable person with no sources listed. This article has been tagged as sourceless orphan for some time.Brian0324 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage[edit]

Kashmiri Muslim tribes from Hindu Lineage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Thia article is almost an exact replica of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Punjabi_Muslim_tribes_from_Hindu_Lineage. That article was deleted for being an "indiscriminate collection of unsourced information". This article has some sources, but they are for material which is off topic. Delete for violating WP:OR, and WP:NOT. IP198 15:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not an indiscriminate collection of unsourced information .

The sources in the article are directly related to the topic .
There is no original research as there are citations from standard secondary sources .
Intothefire 17:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced from secondary sourced. Nom has got an axe to grind as well.Bakaman 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than 5 days since this debate was started and therefore a verdict should be passed closing the discussion .CheersIntothefire 06:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep - not a "small village" but a mid-sized city, which are notable by extensive precedent. --Haemo 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welimada[edit]

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

Non-notable small village in Sri Lanka. Cyclopediafixer 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, unless there is a belief that it does not exist. Real (officially recognised) locations are always notable, be they villages or countries. J Milburn 15:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a "small village" of 95,000 people.[20] Even if it were a village it would be notable enough as a confirmed settlement. --Dhartung | Talk 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Towns and cities are generally considered notable on Wikipedia. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 16:30, 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 17:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable vegetarians[edit]

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

Redundant to Category:Vegetarians and List of vegans where the people are already notable. Spellcast 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge List of vegans into this one, as I have always understood they are a subset of vegetarians. --Dhartung | Talk 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it still adds nothing to all the people in Category:Vegetarians by nationality. Spellcast 15:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Ρх₥α 01:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z 3 Original Soundtrack[edit]

Dragon Ball Z 3 Original Soundtrack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable Sound Track for one game DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An album cannot inherit notability from it's label/artist. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep album on major label notable separately from the video game. -Drdisque 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would a merge and redirect to the video game article, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai 3, be appropriate, as this is the soundtrack of the Japanese-language release of the game? -- saberwyn 02:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dragon Ball Z: Budokai 3 per saberwyn. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not so sure a merger is a good idea. Both of the articles are already pretty long, and the guideline at Wikipedia:Summary style promotes division as a way of addressing that. The notability claim for this album is not strong, but it is a compilation including at least three notable artists. Hence, per WP:MUSIC, "If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". On the other hand, such albums need "independent coverage", which this does not really offer. Hence, my "keep" !vote is weak. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 no assertion of notability.CitiCat ♫ 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Benoist Varoclier[edit]

Pierre-Benoist Varoclier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This nomination is (sort of) on behalf of an anonymous user, who said, in [21]

"The same page has been deleted from the French version of Wikipedia, as Pierre-Benoist Varoclier didn't fulfil the required criterias (Varoclier appears in many movies, which explains why he has a page on IMDB, but never played any significant part and therefore can be considered not notable). He also was suspected of having created the page himself for autopromotion."

. Indeed, for his supposedly only role in a "big" film, Mr. Bean, the IMDB says he's uncredited (i.e. at best he acted a waiter in a half-scene, I can't tell), while UniFrance lists only 2 additional films, for which he's credited... last on the list, if that's the measure of importance. Can't find any independent reviews other than miscellaneous film databases. Actually, his home page at http://pbv.free.fr/ has several more roles from 2006/2007, but can't tell about their significance. Duja► 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability in this article. You cannot rely on transwiki notability, but I could suppose that not meeting notability on the French Wikipedia does not bode well here. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no information that contradicts the findings of either the nom here or our colleagues at the French Wikipedia. No assertion of notability. I have no objection to recreating the article if the subject lands a major role. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:59, 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. There's nothing except birth date and death date that's not already in History of the Brenham Jewish Community. - KrakatoaKatie 08:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Simon[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:BIO notability criteria. The notability assertions in the article include the fact that he helped found a small synagogue in Brenham, Texas and that he was an investor in a railroad. Three of the four sources do not meet WP:RS, and the other mentions the subject only in passing. I was unable to find further sources on Google. Karanacs 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no indication of notability beyond local prominence. --Dhartung | Talk 15:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community because this article is part of a group of articles relating to Jews and Judaism in Texas (the others being James Simon (Businessman), Henry Cohen Community House, Jimmy Kessler, Rosa Levin Toubin, Simon Theatre Simon family, Joe Levin (Businessman), Alex Simon, Sam H. Toubin) that have been nominated for deletion by User Karanacs (talk · contribs) (and another, Temple Freda nominated by another user) yet taken as a whole these articles are a valuable set of records about a topic in a state with relatively few Jews and with an even scantier record of notable Jews, Judaism and Jewish history in it. There is indeed a great need for an article about History of the Jews in Texas and these articles would all be good starting points and resources for it. This article, like the others in this group, cite adequate sources and meet the minimal requirements to be kept. The nominator is requested to reconsider her nominations of these articles. Thank you, IZAK 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REQUEST: In order to reach a greater consensus about the related "Texas Jews articles" that have been nominated for deletion, please see and add your views at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Nominations of Texas Jews articles for deletion. Thank you, IZAK 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into History of the Brenham Jewish Community or possibly Simon Theatre. In the current state of the article, it looks like the sources are essentially primary, which would mean that Wikipedia would be the first place that a comprehensive biography on this individual would be published. Understanding and appreciating the effort involved in bringing this material together, the difficulty is that Wikipedia is intended only to republish material whose significance and accuracy has previously vetted by other sources; a first biography would be prohibited by the no original research policy and biography guideline. I would suggest merging this material with an article on a broader topic such as History of the Brenham Jewish Community, since the policy for stand-alone biographies is stricter than the requirements for brief mention in a broader article. As a stand-alone article there currently isn't enough sourcing to meet policy requirements. If additional sourcing is found please let me know and I'd be happy to reconsider. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a fine man, but nothing to satisfy WP:BIO and this is not a place for a compendium of local biography nor for memorials to dead ancestors or coreligionists. The argument that "It is valuable" is right up there with "I like it" or "I worked hard writing it" as a non-reason for keeping. Edison 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable article. Bhaktivinode 13:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So far, there has only been one vote to delete the Simon Theatre, so it should be considered as a possible place for the article to be merged with if the vote is merge. Bhaktivinode 02:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is notable. Yahel Guhan 01:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fully agree with his/her analysis of the sources provided. Doctorfluffy 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notable enough to Keep - Individual contributed to state economic growth and cultural institutions. Bhaktivinode 02:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and reincarnation[edit]

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

This article has been around for a while - but that has only shown that it is unsalvageably an essay on an unencyclopedic subject. It consists solely of a whole screed of Bible passages, and utterly unreferenced, nonacademic opinionated commentary about whether they may be compatible with reincarnation. There is no evidence of citable secondary literature discussing the subject - and the references are just a concocted reading list. I've no doubt an proper essay on Christian views of reincarnation or Jewish views of Reincarnation could be written - which could include any discussion of the hermeneutics of the Bible in any academic debates on the matter (if there indeed are any). But this essay is just the assertions of wikipedians and should be deleted. We've waited long enough for a clean-up, and it obviously ain't gonna happen.. -Docg 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unattributed OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was considering proposing it just the day before, on article's talk page (here, at OR). Glad I'm not the only one. adriatikus | 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Danny 16:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nonsensical silliness, virtually unreferenced, and the few books listed seem to be written by cranks. Moreschi Talk 16:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess Jesus came so that we may live again. And again. And again. At least the author is honest in giving examples of someone "might say" rather than what they do say. They just might. Take it to Zondervan Press or start your own church. Mandsford 22:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NO EXEGESIS and WP:NO HERETIC SYNCHRETISM--victor falk 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs referencing, but the topic is notable, and I don't see anything so terrible about it that we should start from scratch. Everyking 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By a look at the history, I say it could have been deleted at any point in its history. It could be an encyclopedic article. Theoretically. But I think it's better to wait for its next, er, reincarnation... --victor falk 10:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The topic is notable the same way 'bible and aliens' would be. Notability isn't about what is cool, or speculative syncretisms. Per WP:N, "notability is distinct from popularity". In this case, the topic would be notable if (1) there would be denominations interpreting the Bible (not other sources) as sustaining reincarnation, or (2) there would be scholars (like religion historians) interpreting the text of the Bible in this way. AFAIK there is no Christian denomination standing such a position. I'm not aware of any scholar standing it, either. One could speculate about the influences between reincarnation believes and Abrahamic religions eschatology, but this would be a topic related to religious systems and not simply to a collection of texts (like the Bible). On the other hand, the topic is cool because of the recently developed mixture of conspiracy theories, anti-papacy (in extenso anti-catholicism), popular (both in a proper and pejorative sense) interest in biblical archeology, and the need to fill a void in the "civilised" but secular West. This void may be filled by anyone as he seems to be right for himself - by revolt against institutionalised religion, by turning toward Far East religious systems, by syncretism, by inventing "true" Christians (e.g. gnostics - BTW, they weren't Christians) silenced by the "evil" Church etc. No problem. Everyone should travel this "personal journey" the way he likes and feels it's right. But this searching should be kept in one's personal universe and not promoted in an encyclopedia as being "notable".
Now to the point. The fact that some morons made money on people's ignorance (like Dan Brown and Simcha Jacobovici), insinuating (that fiction may be real, like the former) or speculating (like the later), doesn't make a topic notable. Don't confound notability to ratings points. This "Gnostic revival" we lately observe in magazines, in pop science tv networks, in blogs, in success books (yeah, that's money), is dust in the air. It's pop religiosity based on pop science. There aren't scientists, nor denominations supporting it. Only people making money and a bunch of ignorants paying for something they cannot critically judge. How many of its supporters actually studied the history of the Church? Hm, maybe if you search enough you may find some Liberal Christians related to this media trend (like The Lost Tomb of Jesus religious "consultant", hehe, James Tabor) who interpret the Bible purely metaphorically, in various ways (and I'm not sure they suport reincarnation being in or suggested by the Bible) - but they are an insignificantly small group, small enough to deserve an article titled "Bible interpretation in Liberal Xtian views" (if this article is feasible). Maybe one should "gather evidence" on the topic starting with Biblical canon, Christian eschatology and even Afterlife, here, at WP, before considering to propose "keep" for this article.
The article is wrong because: (1) it hasn't reliable sources, (2) there aren't reliable sources per above, (3) it directly contradicts the views of the great majority of Christians, denominations and biblical scholars, (4) it leads the reader into drawing wrong conclusions (I can imagine the perplexity of the reader of this article confronted to Death and resurrection of Jesus - read the Significance part), (5) it's purely speculative, (6) there is no debate if the Bible sustains or may sustain reincarnation.
This topic stayed open for too long. It seems it's judged politically correctly forgetting about common sense. Anyone can start any article if he provides reliable sources. Otherwise, if the article flagrantly contradicts without sources topics already covered, discussed, with reliable sources, here, at WP, then it should be deleted. I've thought WP isn't a blog.
adriatikus | 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Lataster[edit]

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

This biography has been created, possibly by the individual concerned, for promotion. My expertise is in Aramaic and Syriac (currently at Oxford): Lataster has never published in a peer-reviewed journal, nor has he any qualification in the field. Thus, any claim to have broken through academic consensus is impossible to evaluate, and is likely bunk. As for the financial advice, I'm not sure it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. — Gareth Hughes 14:18, 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. GRBerry 14:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (LA)[edit]

Fear of God (LA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was originally (and properly) deleted as a CSD A7 DRV restored on the basis of a new assertion (not yet verified) that the band's recordings were published under the Warner Brothers label. Still, delete, given notability concerns. Xoloz 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Amazon confirms that they had records released on a Warner Brothers, so it's likely that reliable sources will exist; though as a defunct 90s band they are more likely to be offline than online (hence I haven't done a thorough search - I'll let the creator find them). Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unleass warner automaticaly conveys notability. I see no assertion of meeting notability, and the allmusic page does not mention any awards. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And being released on a major label does meet WP:BAND. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:43, 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 Delete — if you want a copy of the deleted article to merge content from, request one. --Haemo 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam H. Toubin[edit]

Sam H. Toubin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This individual does not meet notability criteria; the only claims the article makes are that he operated nine stores in Texas and donated money to a few local organizations. He is of no more than local interest, if that, and does not appear to be the subject of any reliable sources. The creator has asserted on the talk page that he is important to Jewish Texan history, but there is no claim for that in the article. Karanacs 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Home Server Add-Ins[edit]

List of Windows Home Server Add-Ins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This page is just one giant ad. The phrasing tone is very ad oriented ("No minimum monthly fees, no long-term commitment", "Find and view album art for all your music"), most of these products are also NN - A google search for Jungle Disk for Windows Home Server brings back little to do with Jungle disk after page 2, A search for HomeBase only brings up, rather random, results, searches for KeepVault and LobsterTunes bear only several results on the first page, a search Remote Notification simply brings up results for anything with "Remote Notification" in it. TV-VCR watch 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge Just add it to the WHS main article. It has merit, but doesn't need to be it's own article.
  • keep I disagree with the above comment. Windows Home Server is an important new technology that millions of people will adopt over the next couple of years to manage their increasingly sophisticated home computing setups. The Add-Ins are an essential and powerful part of this. The Add-In's forums are very active and a lot of developers are working on developing solutions to work with Windows Home Server. Windows Home Server has its own page - it is a commercial app. This page should be retained. If there are individual entries which are poor or dead links then they should be pruned by the community. If it is decided that the page should be deleted completely then 3rd party Add-Ins (most of which are free and provide very useful services) should (and probably will ) be added to the Windows Home Server Wiki page directly. Finally some of the comments above are unfair, for instance Googling LobsterTunes produces several pages of links and what is wrong with the phrase "Find and view album art for all your music" - its a very succint way of expressing one of the things it does to make playing music more enjoyable.......--Goelectric 09:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Goelectric (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • keep I think that both coments are correct. While I think that WHS is a great program, and we should list some, if not all of its' add in's, some of these entries do sound like ads. Maybe editing them to be less "addy"? Links to the www page's? Stuff like that. I do think that the add in's should have there own page because otherwise, the actuall WHS page will get to overcroweded, and not every person who looks at the WHS page will care about the add in's. That's why this page exists. Well, that's my 2 cents. swat671 23:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - non encyclopaedic list with no information as to importance at all. B1atv 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 14:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a catalog. This is just a magnet for spam. --Dhartung | Talk 15:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wp:not. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a list of pieces of software which would each probably be speedily deleted if they were in separate articles. Combining them under the heading of "Windows Home Server Add-Ins" doesn't make them any more notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11, blatant advertising.Cynical 17:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing about this article that is ENCYCLOPEDIC. We are an encyclopedia, not a damn infomercial. Say it with me people, EN-CY-CLO-PE-DI-A. Do not merge under any circumstances. Burntsauce 18:18, 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 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Renzi[edit]

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

Claims of notability in article are a bit weak. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show any notability for this Joseph Renzi. Sources given in article either don't mention Joseph Renzi at all or are only passing mentions. Speedy has been contested, so I assume prod will be too. Fabrictramp 14:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no clear establishment of meeting WP:BIO criteria. suspected self promotional article by user who has solely edited this page and Joseph Renzi's company article SwapAce, now deleted. original version of this article contained excessive minor detail such as that he was the 2nd child of his parents and that he was a member of chess club at high school. type of detail that only Joseph would know himself. clear violation of WP:COI. 210.56.73.254 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless confirmable attribution of notability to independent sources is forthcoming. One of the awards is 404'ed, the other seems to have been a public nomination process that he did not win. The sources suggest some marginal notability per WP:CORP for SwapAce.com, and if that article is created with proper sourcing he could be mentioned there. (Right now it has multiple deletions as spam.) --Dhartung | Talk 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, cited sources do not conneect or do not support WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, entry seems too much of a resume and self promotion of relatively minor achievements. Michellecrisp 04:07, 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 17:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc[edit]

Young Arcan and the Garden of Loc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedy-deleted under CSD A7. DRV overturned as books are not within the CSD. Still, Delete as advertorial, and a probable vanity-press work. Xoloz 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found; whether or not the publisher is a vanity press (and it seems far from obvious to me that it is), it's a tiny publisher, and the book seems to have received little or no attention, online at least. [25] [26]. The only sources offered are the author's and publisher's websites. The tone of the "biography" section is spammy, the rest is just a plot summary. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 16:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copy of DRV comment: Advertorial article on the first book of an ambitious but non-notable young author (Matthew R. Milson, also deleted) published by a vanity press (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avari Press) on October 15 of this year. Milson has been shopping Young Arcan around since January 2006 and while I wish him the best of luck, Wikipedia is not a proper venue for advertising new fictional works. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedantic comment The AfD doesn't say anything about Avari Press being a vanity press, and their website doesn't contain any hint that they charge for publication. I'm not sure where the confident claims in that DRV that it's a vanity press came from. However it only has a tiny catalogue, so being published by it is nowhere near enough to establish notability anyway. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that there's no conclusive proof that Avari is a vanity press, and I am not inclined to entertain their submission process to substantiate the claim. To clarify, it was only after reading over the three relevant articles that I came to agree with the vanity press label initially suggested by the editor who added the speedy deletion tags. Either way, it is far too early to know whether Milson's book will sink or swim. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot see how this meets Wikipedia:Notability (books) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I can't find any indication that Avari is a vanity press (I saw a couple of mentions in a Google hunt, but nothing firm), the novel itself hasn't really received the coverage that would see it through for notability. Maybe later, if it picks up, but right now it doesn't meet our guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to the Wikipedia etiquette concerning articles for deletion: “The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.” Fan of fantasy —Preceding comment was added at 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page you're quoting is referring to the accusation of so-called "vanity articles," pointing out that we will generally keep an autobiographical article if the subject is in fact notable. That is not the context in which the word "vanity" is being used in this debate; here it refers to vanity presses. Chick Bowen 21:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 17:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only coverage I could find was this brief news piece from Lancaster Online, a news site for Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, home of Avari Press. Fails the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works" test. --Stormie 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why was this overturned? Oh well. Delete it again for good this time, and hooray for bureaucracy. Burntsauce 18:19, 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 17:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juiced series soundtracks[edit]

Juiced series soundtracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related page:

SSX series soundtracks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More soundtracks...

  1. Notability - the only sources these soundtracks have are such gaming sites as ign, gamespot, teamxbox etc. who report on many such aspects of games as and when they are announced by the publisher. This does not comprise significant coverage as each game's soundtrack is not discussed in any meaningful way, just listed, somtimes along with a bit of press-release blurb.
  2. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Each game's soundtrack has no meaningful connection to the others in its series and listing them together serves no real purpose.
  3. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY - Notable elements of soundtracks should be written about (not listed) in each game's article.
  4. WP:WEIGHT - the soundtracks have little to no impact on the games themselves, and their importance is being highly overstated by giving them seperate articles. Again, the most notable elements of each soundtack should be mentioned on the pages of the games in question.
  5. Guidelines for video game articles - "[articles should not contain] an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia". Simply being true and verifyable is no reason for inclusion. If necessary, these lists should be transferred to a suitable gaming wiki - they can always be linked to from the game articles.
  6. Also per general WP:CVG concensus that video game lists have to demonstrate a very good reason for existing, and these simply don't. Miremare 13:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - if the soundtrack has notable artists that are cited in secondary sources, a prose statement can be added to the individual articles to describe the type of music in the game (I note this should be the case for SSX Blur), but otherwise it's all BG music and non-notable for an article. --MASEM 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with a caveat: Most of these sound tracks are indeed non-notable and should be deleted as such, however I'd like care to be taken that this isn't considered automatically precidential in the case of truely notable sound tracks or ones compiled by notable artists that would otherwise meet WP:MUSIC.129.89.68.218 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the hell would you delete this? What's wrong with it being here? The soundtrack is not listed anywhere in the game so why not have it here? Idiotic. FogDevil 21:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentWith all due respect FogDevil, that itself is a sort of argument for deletion (though a weak one). In general Wikipedia policy forbids Original Research. The concerns here are not about the usefulness or veracity of the list, but rather the notability of the subject matter. In the absence of third-party material on the soundtrack, all that can be said about it is "this is the soundtrack to this game" which is a type of the more generally deleted article group where all that can be said is "X is a Y," and a list of attributes. Wintermut3 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki All Juiced tracks are now transwikied to the Encyclopedia Gamia they can be found under the soundtrack link on the infobox of the games--Cs california 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I finished all SSX tracks --Cs california 07:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool that you did that but how is that good to a normal Wikipedia user like me? I don't even know what that this.FogDevil 14:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a gaming wiki that is right here so the articles can be found there still --Cs california 07:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate in my userspace for merging into relevant articles. Redirect and preserve history would be preferred to prevent GFDL issues and usersubpage clutter. User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you want this deleted? Is it hurting you by being here? I don't want to be one of those internet jerks who just criticizes people, but find something better to do than find articles to delete...FogDevil 23:03, 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, without prejudice to recreation if the film actually gets produced.--Kubigula (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Mermaid III[edit]

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

Article's existence is not yet warranted per the notability guidelines for films. If the project enters production, the article can be recreated. As the article suggests, this project has likely been dumped. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shows no reliable sources, either, with apparently only speculation in forums and blogs. If the project can be verified to enter production per WP:NF, then the article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I've only just noticed the previous AfD's for this title; each of which was clear as to the recommendation to delete. I should really have taken this to speedy, but no matter. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 12:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfDs were before the so-called preview of The Little Mermaid III on DVD on October 2006, so I'm not sure if speedy deletion would have worked. Judging from the lack of any information about this project since the preview, though... —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This film's mere existence is not confirmed anywhere but the IMDb, blogs and maybe some Disney "rumor sites". This article can be re-created if the film materializes. szyslak 16:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifable sourcing found. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until an official announcement
  • Delete per nom and untill it is confirmed. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 12:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. There is a trailer for this film in many of the recently released PE versions of various disney films (especially the PE version of TLM), so that is at least one valid source. and besides, the whole blogs thing, the mere fact that at least one of the blogs is by a VA and has confirmed in said blog that she IS voicing Alana is valid enough to be a source. Also, why is it that you blacklisted IMDB as a source if you source it in many critical responses sections of various films? If it is blacklisted, it shouldn't even be in a critical response section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.252.186 (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot count on the info at IMDB as being verifiable. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you guys used it in several Critical Response sections despite it not being verifiable? really, if it isn't verifiable, why would you source it in a critical response section of a Movie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.252.186 (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a nice source of extra information, but it should not be the only source. It cannot be used to assert notability. It seems IMDB articles have been tampered with in the past, for what reasons you cab well imagine. And just because someone did does not mean they should have. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. As mentioned above, Disney has acknowledged the movie and released at least one clip of the movie. At this point, whether the movie sees release or gets shelved, there is enough out there to warrant at least a short article until more information comes to light. Lighthope 06:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Rat Movie[edit]

A Rat Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There are no reliable sources that establish notability or provide verifiable content for this purported project. It seems to constitute a hoax as there is a similar film article at AfD, Jujitsu Deer, that cannot be verified as an actual film in the making. The proponent of the unverifiable information on Wikipedia has been UserMarcoUser/GarryUser. Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense - were this subject real and this close to release, there is no doubt that large quantities of coverage would exist. Girolamo Savonarola 19:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources indicating this exists. I'm almost certain I'd have heard about this if it was in the works, and Dreamworks has been kind of busy with Bee Movie - I doubt they've got another one on the go. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as bullpuckey. Yeah. Right. Unfortunately not patent nonsense, though. --UsaSatsui 07:42, 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 The article simply did not meet reliable sourcing or verifiability That however was not the causation for the deletion. There were biography of living persons issues in the mix. This article was not a good idea BLP wise from the start.. Mercury 22:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have changed their name[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of celebrities who have changed their name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article was up for deletion back in april. The result was no consensus. Many of the keeps wanted to see improvement, as far as I can tell nothing has improved. And I would like to highlight this statement from the first debate "The info is already in the articles. If I want to look up Gerald Fords original name I'll just look in his article. "Wikipedia articles are not: 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"". I personally think the is way to broad of an inclusion criteria and the subjects may be notable but the topic is not notable. Ridernyc 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak delete isnt this a list, like a directory of sorts? I am trying to find ways that a college student could use this article, and I can't. If article can be improved somehow I will change to keep, but I agree with ridernyc, and I think I did comment previously on this list with the comment above, or I might have thought the same. msg me if the article changes so I can review my opinion. Ta T--T3Smile 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Could be useful if sourced, but I've concerns about how manageable it could be, or encyclopediac. • Lawrence Cohen 13:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in principle I agree with nom. but alas it passes WP:INTERESTING for me. JJL 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might have noticed that that is from a page called "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". —Verrai 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am aware of that, and my "alas" was meant to indicate that I knew I was using an argument-to-avoid argument. However, regarding the comment below, I disagree that this is irrelevant--hence those arguments are to be avoided rather than being disallowed. JJL 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "Arguments to avoid" page is merely an essay, stating the views of a few editors, and is not a guideline or a Wikipedia policy. Please mention that it is an essay whenever it is cited. Edison 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arbitrary list of unconnected and unrelated items. Triviacruft. Arguments about being "useful" or "interesting" are irrelevant.
  • CommentHow is it any more or less connected than any other list? What makes being born in the same city, or going to the same school a "related" list, and this not? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete —Verrai 14:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, replace with category. The info is quite interesting, but it's not really suited to an article. It seems much more suitable to just categorize the articles for notable people who have changed their name. Rob T Firefly 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If necessary, make into a category. If people are interested in former names, they can just scroll through the pages in the category and read it in first sentence of the article. Spellcast 15:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wont that just lead to the CFD crew calling for it's deletion with the argument of "delete, replace with a list", and so on? Lugnuts 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If one format had to be picked, it would have to be the category. Besides, the list is just way too broad. Spellcast 15:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest making the category, being sure to leave a note about this AfD and a link to this discussion on its talk page to hold off the CfD crowd. Rob T Firefly 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It offers more information than what is available in a category. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The World Almanac generally contains a list like this, to which many of the entries can be sourced. I agree with Richard that a list can provide more info than a category. A list is also, FWIW, more fun to browse through. Zagalejo^^^ 16:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or categorize. WP:NOT indiscriminate. Manageability could be a problem. Not sure if there is encyclopedic interest. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain how making it a category would make the information suddenly become "discriminate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, a category will only be able to contain people notable enough for their own articles. Additionally, categories aren't indiscriminate gatherings of new information, they are simply an organizational tool for the information we already have. Rob T Firefly 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
exactly in order to be in a catagory an article should have already established it's own notability. On a list you nee to establish notabilty for every entry.Ridernyc 09:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the people on this list are actually celebrities, then we can assume that they pass notability guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly what lists are for, as defined by WP:LIST. Lists and categories complement each other; they are not intended as an either/or alternative. We're bound to get WP:NOT as an excuse for deletion of any and all lists, but this list clearly defines who belong here. Alansohn 18:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that the changing of names is so ubiquitous among celebrities -- actors, musicians, etc. -- that we would probably have to list a good 90% of the people in the public eye. Plus the criteria of the list also indicates it includes women who changed their names through marriage, which was a completely NN and common occurrence until it fell into disfavor (in some circles) 20 or so years ago. I could see a list of celebrity women who changed their names through marriage being a viable list because it hasn't happened very often. You had folks like Roseanne Barr going by Roseanne Arnold for awhile ... but usually they don't change their professional name. Angelina Jolie didn't change her name to Angelina Thornton when she was married to Billy-Bob, at least not professionally. The only way I can support such a list is if it were broken down into very specific categories such as that. 23skidoo 20:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, it's encylopedic. Though some may think this is silly, reference books like the World Almanac actually do keep track of things like this, and yes, they do list celebrities (and their original names parenthetically) in alphabetical order. The currency of Wikipedia gives it an advantage over what will be in the 2008 almanacs. Mandsford 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not "indiscriminate," since to be included, one must first be a celebrity and second have changed his/her name. Such a list is found in common popular reference works such as the "World Almanac." It is maintainable because if a celebrity such as Roy Roger (born Leonard Slye) is not in the list, he can be added, and if someone who is not a celebrity is in the list, he can be removed, by the simple process of editing. The birth name is listed in the main article on the individual. The normal garden variety names with which celebrities began life are of encyclopedic interest to readers. Edison 19:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was hoping there would be article improvement, but alas not, and I'll maintain my original stance. Wikipedia is not an almanac, it is an encyclopedic reference. Should there be a great revision of such article, pls message me and I will revisit again. tick tick tick. T--T3Smile 12:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's another idea: List of celebrities who used to wear braces. Sound like a good list? I DIDN'T THINK SO EITHER. Burntsauce 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear WP:NOT material, fails WP:V, WP:RS, clear case of no application of WP:COMMONSENSE, article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm attempting to add sources to the article, so please don't delete it just yet. Zagalejo^^^ 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've sourced about 150 of them. I do agree that the list needs trimming (I'd remove names like J.D. Drew or ALbert Pujols), but those issues can be hashed out on the talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 04:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think sourcing is one of the lesser problems of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and this doesn't come easy as people have obviously put some work into this list). But this is a list where I just ask "So what?" It doesn't tell me why these people changed their name, when they did that, or whether the name change contributed to their notability. And if someone ever included that info (which I doubt), I'd still feel this kind of info would be better suited for the article of the person, not this list. (Also, indiscriminate directory-like problems, but even trimming or tightening the inclusion criterion can't fix what I said before). – sgeureka t•c 10:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are whole books on this sort of stuff, so can't be construed as OR. We honour lists in other areas - WP:FL - what makes this different? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because celebrity is an inherently POV term, and because changing names is defined in a hopelessly wooly way, so as to include nicknames, aliases, stage names and the like - too many names. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WLCM (Lancaster)[edit]

WLCM (Lancaster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Was speedy deleted "This article is totally pointless.". Anthony Appleyard 11:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to have been deleted to me... The article seems to have a point to me, though could maybe be merged into some other article. mattbuck 12:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: Was speedy-delete-tagged "This article is totally pointless.". Anthony Appleyard 16:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES: "Licensed radio and TV stations are notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Since notability is not temporary, the fact that the station is off the air should be irrelevant. Smashville —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep. no longer broadcasts. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a presently licensed and operating radio station is inherently notable, then the "non-temporary" nature of Wikipedia notability should extend to one whic apparently was on the air from 1949 to 1987 or so. (I suppose by the same argument, if every inhabited hamlet is notable, then ghost towns or vanished and plowed-over hamlets are notable too.) Edison 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In an historical swense, yes. And as you say, Wikipedia is timelss. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Licensed full-power broadcast stations are notable and notability is not temporary. DHowell 21:04, 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 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Izet Kaljic[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer; from what I gathered, he played only in a few Swedish 4-th or 5-th division clubs. 8 Google hits. Almost an CSD A7 candidate, but being a "hot name for big clubs" is an assertion of notability. Duja► 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notable. J Milburn 11:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Fails notability guidelines. However, I am not too sure whether the information in this article can be verified. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, never played at professional level as far as can be established. "Hot prospects" get an article when they have achieved their promise, not before. - fchd 15:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears this article is a "hot prospect" for deletion. --Evb-wiki 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Orphaned, non-notable and delete is only option at the moment Peanut4 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and User:Number 57. robwingfield «T•C» 01:18, 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 and redirect to Windows Live Hotmail per WP:BLP1E. - KrakatoaKatie 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Chaney (consultant)[edit]

Michael Chaney (consultant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Had very minor press coverage for a single event (see WP:BLP1E), content should be merged into an article about passport.net. He is not notable for anything else. There is no way to support the article with anything about his life beyond this one event (for example his death would not be notable or in the papers). Was nominated for deletion more than a year ago with no consensus. debate is here. Jon513 11:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed - this should probably be merged as a piece of curio history into hotmail. This most def. happened (I remember it :) ) but I'm not sure it warrants its own article... Nachmore 13:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per BLP & BLP1E. • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Individual does not meet WP:BIO notability standards. --Dhartung | Talk 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Hotmail. Karanacs 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Bin Azarah Falli[edit]

Ibrahim Bin Azarah Falli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article and Failed to establish notability NAHID 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Author's other article "Ibrahim Falli" removed yesterday after db-person. Pishogue 20:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centreon[edit]

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

Software that shows no sign of being notable in any way Pak21 11:17, 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, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming To God[edit]

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

Prodecural nom; I've just declined a speedy-delete request on this as while the article is right on the margin of an A7, it appears to be potentially expandable and not a two-guys-with-a-myspace-page band. Despite the one album, I'm not convinced it passes WP:BAND, but am certainly willing to be convinced. Lots of hits but no reliable sources that I can find; however, since they're from pre-internet days it may be that the press exists but hasn't made it online. Bringing it over in case anyone can dig coverage out. BTW, ignore the deleted version in the log; that wasn't deleted on notability grounds, but was a totally different version deleted as a copyvio. I'm sitting on the fence regarding this one as I think it's very borderline, so I abstain. — iridescent 22:16, 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, Coredesat 05:12, 25 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources other than the band's own Myspace page. If the band were notable, there would be something to dig up. Mindraker 12:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable sources are presented supporting notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable sources are added. A1octopus 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused as to why this is recommended for deletion or is considered not verifiable - google search on [stg no longer human] brings up band website - most press on this band is probably pre-internet but there are other bands who are not deleted from wikipedia who are similar in regards to genre/time frame i.e. hate dept and kevorkian death cycle LAF 19:47, 26 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.68.246 (talk)
    There are many non verifiable sources on the web. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:20, 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 – no references, original research, fails WP:BIO. If the article's creator wanted something kept confidential, he shouldn't have put it on Wikipedia. - KrakatoaKatie 12:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect. Rudget Contributions 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Neyman[edit]

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

It is the biography of someone who is not overly important - the only thing he really has is a website, which is run almost solely by himself. Thus, he does not really need an article. DarthSidious 08:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. Not even a claim of notability thus solidly meets speedy criteria. I have added that tag. The image should go too.Obina 09:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Answers in Creation; no attribution of notability to independent sources. I suspect speedy will be denied, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. No sources in article to show notability; first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. I'm torn on the speedy -- not comfortable enough to go ahead and delete the article, but not comfortable enough to remove the tag.--Fabrictramp 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Answers in Creation. I removed the A7 tag because the claim of 1,000 web articles written seems to assert notability to me. Don't get me wrong – I don't think he is notable, but I don't quite think it meets A7 either. Hopefully someone will snow-close this one. KrakatoaKatie 14:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I redirecting to Answers in Creation? Rudget Contributions 15:27, 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. Carioca 01:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CIMI-FM[edit]

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

Auto-promotional article. Non notable community radio station in Quebec city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antaya (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 October 2007

Just a comment, apparently the french AfD raised self promotion concerns too. -- lucasbfr talk 14:29, 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 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big Momma's House 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Big Momma's House 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article's existence is not yet warranted per the notability guidelines for films. If the project enters production, the article can be recreated. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 08:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the notability guidelines for films and possibly WP:CRYSTAL due to the lack of verifiable content about this upcoming film. There doesn't even appear to be a listing at IMDb, and this does not appear to qualify as a reliable source that fails to have a reputation for fact-checking or editorial oversight. If the project can be evidenced to enter production, then it would be appropriate to recreate the article. However, there appears to be nothing to salvage here. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. If this project can be evidenced to enter production, then the article can be recreated. However, right now, it appears to be a hoax. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I wouldn't call it a hoax, but imdb has no record of the film making me wonder whether it will actually go ahead. The one link that is shown, provides minimal evidence to suggest this article may be true, or even for that matter, verifiable. But if it is a hoax, why has it took from February to now to put here? Rudget Contributions 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not hard to fathom. Lots of articles simply aren't noticed until one has a glance at a category listing (as occurred in this case, I believe). Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have to say that such a sequel was probably talked about -- the same thing happened with Ghost Rider 2, in which the producer said that they'd make a sequel during press for the film. It doesn't mean that time and money will realistically be invested in such a project. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and my deep depression in the fact that there was a Big Momma's House 2. :/ JuJube 22:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 23:20, 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 DS 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Moddel[edit]

Hoax article; there is no rugby league played in Hungary. See related hoax articles Magyar Posta Hungarian Rugby League Championship and Hungarian national rugby league team WWGB 07:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current list of "Hungarian rugby league puppets": [27] [28] [29][30] [31] [32] [33] WWGB 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of the addresses of fictional characters[edit]

List of the addresses of fictional characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is essentially an incomplete "white pages" directory for fictional characters (incompleteness is not the reason for deletion, by the way). The {{prod}} tag was removed and this comment left on the talk page. – Black Falcon (Talk) 07:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete totally pointless list. Canuck85 07:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while very amusing that someone has put in the effort of making this, it's a strange article choice. Usually I keep pages, but this should go.

DarthSidious 09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

  • Delete per above. Bizarre choice of article creation, but no place on Wikipedia. Rudget Contributions 10:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hehe what an awesome page. I am going to make a copy of it and host it elsewhere. There is no place for it on Wikipedia though. Darkcraft 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This would be GREAT on another web page, like what Darkcraft said, for things like crossword puzzles. Unfortunately, I have to vote Delete. Mindraker 12:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very cute/fun, but not quite for Wikipedia. • Lawrence Cohen 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As with many of us, I enjoyed the list, it's interesting, I like the "white pages" arrangement, I appreciate the effort, I won't make fun of you for creating it, and I'm saving it on the hard-drive, so I'll stop short of saying delete. But it's pure trivia, and a Wikipedia article can't be composed entirely of trivia. An interesting factoid can always be mentioned in an article, and my suggestion is that you add the information to the articles about the various shows, if it's not there already. After all, no article about Archie Bunker would be complete without a mention of 704 Hauser Street. Mandsford 22:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft/fancruft; completely unreferenced OR. •97198 talk 06:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 01:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, add creator to List of people who should not create lists. Burntsauce 18:21, 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 --Haemo 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilled in Miami[edit]

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

Article's existence is not warranted per the notability guidelines for films. Anything could happen to prevent the start of filming this far from the projected date. The article can be recreated when/if the film enters production. Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films), which states "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun. Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Moonriddengirl. Doctorfluffy 22:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; the film article can be recreated if the project enters production. Right now, its status to become a full-fledged film article is not concrete. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KrakatoaKatie 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hintire[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article is nearly incohearent so it's hard to tell what is going on here. Law & Disorder 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It is exceptionally badly written, but it appears this isn't actually about a person, but a sub-clan of a Somali tribe. So if it can be rewritten it might be worth keeping.Alberon 09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for expansion, as per Alberon's comments. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for expansion per above. Notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia. Consuelo D'Guiche 14:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Alberon. It is rather badly written, but could assert a great notability when expanded and even a DYK? quote. Rudget Contributions 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what do you base your opinion on? i'm seeing a complete lack of evidence. Law & Disorder 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability or sources. Just seem to be an ordinary extended family. Colonel Warden 22:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems notable enough and has the potential to be improved. Captain panda 00:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
what potential? can you prove that this is notable and has any potential? should we have articles on every clan that ever existed? Law & Disorder 03:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on current content and lack of sources. I may reconsider if this article is cleaned up and sourced during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 05:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no assertion of notability. I don't see what effect extra time could have. Doctorfluffy 22:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I have edited the article for readability, attempting to divine as best I can the author's intent. I think it's (barely) acceptable in its present form, and I would ask editors reading this to have a look at the new version. Near as I can tell, the subclan is found in Kenya, Ethiopia, and "other african countries", in addition to Somalia. Being found in such a large geographic area is, in my mind, enough to justify some notbility. Obviously, the article needs more work - but the changes I've added justify a keep !vote per WP:HEY. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a passable stub now. GregorB 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with further info and sources, will make a good entry.--Alf melmac 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Passable stub as it stands.Hagan jared 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7/G11. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyGamZ[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable, single location gaming center. Extent of it's notability appears to be as a test business venture for a large corporation. JPG-GR 06:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable as it marks a movement in an American company away from traditional means of staying viable. The same lack of notability could be said for Ford's Quadricycle as a precursor to the model A. I believe the CyGamZ company information article should not be deleted simply because it is a test venture for a large, privately held corporation. With the dominance of businesses similar to this in Asia and the rapid growth of this industry in the states, this article is relevant to today's entertainment industry. Thank you for the consideration. 69.136.146.146 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC) — 69.136.146.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment The Ford Quadricycle is notable because it was Henry Ford's "first experimental automobile," which then lead to the production of MANY more. As this gaming center hasn't proven itself to be the precursor to anything yet, it is non-notable. Moreover, I'm yet to see any evidence that this CyGamZ is a company - it appears to merely be the name of a single location. In time, perhaps more will pop up, but at this time, it's arguably no different than "Mama Pizarro's Home Style Pizza" down the street. JPG-GR 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


lol, Dominos pizza started off small and now has it's own wikipedia page. The difference is that the Redstone family is in (or near) the top 10 wealthiest family in the US. With the Redstone's experimenting on a concept that is thriving in Europe and Asia here in the states is noteworthy. Whether the concept succeeds or fails, it is noteworthy enough to deserve it's company information with NAI.JetBlackDog75 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) — JetBlackDog75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Yes, but are there articles on test business ventures from Domino's Pizza. Not that I can find. Someday, if successful, this venture may warrant an article. As of right now, it's non-notable. At the very best, there should be a sentence or two on this venture at National Amusements. Just because the Redstone family is famous doesn't mean every new idea they come up with noteworthy. JPG-GR 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol - There was a brief description at National Amusements, but you deleted it siting "spam link - this site is about the parent company, not any of its subsidiaries". It's funny that we are saying almost the same thing but have 2 totally different opinions of it. I've attended the facility as well as it's local competition and found it to be noteworthy. I am very new to this site and I'm learning alot from this experience. I respect your opinion and realize there is very little I can do to change your mind on the topic. If there is any assistance on what would be appropriate on the NAI wiki, I would value the input. JetBlackDog75 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an external link to the CyGamZ website as no mention of CyGamZ was, at that time, mentioned in the article, barring its listing in the Infobox. There's a difference between an external link and a sentence or two explaining what it is. JPG-GR 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem logical if you didn't delete anything related to CyGamZ off of the National Amusements page over and over again. PeRshGo 04:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the history of the NAI wiki an found where pershgo had sentence on the subject and sited his sources. In my revision, I listed the national amusements gaming website as cygamz.com. A simple whois of that site shows NAI to be the owner of cygamz. JPG-GR, you are being horribly inconsistent. Can we agree on either A) listing cygamz under the NAI wiki with sources sited or B) a separate wiki siting it's own sources and siting the NAI wiki. This topic has already received far more attention than is warranted to simply list company information. JetBlackDog75 17:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with info in the National Amusements page as long as it remains NPOV and doesn't sound like spam. JPG-GR 18:15, 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 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Howse[edit]

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

Non-notable junior ice hockey player. Has yet to advance to a professional league (see HockeyDB entry) and has not been drafted by a National Hockey League team Kaiser matias 06:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletions. —Kaiser matias 06:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination -- JD554 07:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOCKEY guidelines for notability Pparazorback 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Skudrafan1 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No notability yet. Can be readded later if he finds some. --Djsasso 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This guy is at least two years away from playing on any professional level, and he hasn't achieved the level of preeminent stature on the amateur level necessary to acquire notability.  RGTraynor  23:35, 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, not notable neologism at best. Most likely complete hoax. Johntex\talk 06:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pyroterrorism[edit]

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

Nonsense phrase, not in any kind of wide spread use. Apparently a spawn of California wildfires of October 2007, I'm assuming originating on Wikipedia. Or in someone's imagination. Google search with non-reliable sources excluded has nothing. 12 hits are left over, and a few are Wikipedia mirrors, and apparently something to do with "children" and "softcore" which I don't wish to examine. A Google News all dates search has even less: 0 hits. Delete, don't redirect anywhere. Fake term. lilith-ezine.com is the only semi-legitimate reference to this word. • Lawrence Cohen 05:43, 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. KrakatoaKatie 11:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fios, Inc[edit]

Fios, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not notable, possible conflict of interest by original editor (who unilaterally removed a prod tag earlier.) Sapphic 05:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no conflict of interest by me, seeing as how I do not work for this company nor have I ever been in contact. I'm a part of WikiProject Oregon and this company entry fits in that vein of work.--Christian B 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to note that indeed I removed a tag A YEAR AGO after trying to get some sort of discussion on the article's talk page about how to improve the article. Since no one seemed interested or wanted to engage in a discussion, I removed it. This was almost one year ago from today...--Christian B 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant nothing personal. I had noticed that you took great interest in Oregon (and Portland – where Fios is headquartered) and in document discovery in general, and had a degree in a field that could very well apply. Thanks for the clarification! (I still don't think this company is notable, however – the report you cited isn't itself notable, and in any event isn't accessible anywhere I can find, at least not without paying the $3000 fee.) --Sapphic 15:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understand where you were coming from; no apologies needed  :)
I'll agree that yes, the entry really needs to be expanded upon and have some cited references. That's something I'll try to do in the next several days. Perhaps I'll try to get it on the list for fix-ups for WikiProject Oregon - that surely would get the entry the kick in the pants it deserves.--Christian B 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP. Doctorfluffy 23:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to have been worked on since nomination, no objection to Christian B copying to his sandbox for working on to see if he can get it up to par.--Alf melmac 23:09, 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 18:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of tracks that sample the Amen break[edit]

List of tracks that sample the Amen break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely unsourced list based on apparent original research, ie someone listens to a song, hears what they think sounds like the break, then adds it to Wikipedia. Even if it were sourced, it would still be a directory of loosely associated songs, unless it can be shown that all of these songs are notable for featuring a 5-second drum sample. Masaruemoto 05:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A strange article - I can't conceive of any use for it, or any notability criteria that it doesn't fail. Thedreamdied 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly original research. The only song on that list that I've heard with a break that sounds remotely like the "Amen break" was the PPG theme song :/ JuJube 07:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an interesting list with a wide variety of implementations of the well known break. +mt 07:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:OR. WP:INTERESTING is not a persuasive argument. Otto4711 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable. --Evb-wiki 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this silly listcruft or we'll end with List of tracks that sample my breakfast. A1octopus 17:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although very informative, the entry mostly contains original research. Spiral-architect 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more listcruft extract. Burntsauce 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Amen break is one of the most important drum beats in music, a break that has surfaced innumerable times in a wide range of musical genres. It has been called an "ubiquitous piece of the pop culture soundscape"[1]. The entry could use more citations to place it within this context--Doughouse 15:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedied, I don't care which category for speedy deletion this may or not meet, it's nonsense and not welcome on Wikipedia. --Stormie 05:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our hookah[edit]

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

Someone has written an ode to the history of their favourite personal smoking implement -- 100% original research, 100% non-notable. I couldn't think of how to speedy this but it seemed to warrant it. Accounting4Taste 05:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to the talk page of the creator, a previous version (Our hooka) was speedied and Our hookah may also have been speedied at least once, and had a (prod) tag removed. Accounting4Taste 05:08, 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.

The result was speedied, patent nonsense. --Stormie 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dnilly[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and topic appears to be made up in school. Originally proposed for deletion, but tag was removed. slakr\ talk / 05:02, 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. KrakatoaKatie 11:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Grove High School[edit]

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

Non-notable school. Also, this article includes extension (phone) numbers for the staff, and that makes it seem directory-like. Anyways, no assertion of notability, so before anybody asks why I didn't tag it for speedy, it is because in my experience, schools never get speedy'd as a lot of admins think schools are exempt from A7. Rjd0060 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs more info instead of just listing clubs & sports teams. Canuck85 06:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Total Rewrite - the editor in question could look at schools such as King Henry VIII School for an idea of what to aim for. Thedreamdied 07:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite I am of the opinion that every school has some form of claim to fame, and some more than others. Any famous or notable people come from the college? If written correctly (as per what Thedreamdied said - have a look at other articles on schools), then the article may have some levity. Won't comment as to keep or delete until I have seen an attempt at rewrite. msg me when rewritten. cheers, T--T3Smile 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - A total re-write might be better than deletion. School has had some clear news coverage[34] and has won awards for improvement and achievement, which suggests some notability. Camaron1 | Chris 15:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To everybody that is suggesting a rewrite, Where is this new information going to come from? Are we just supposed to leave this page up there until somebody decides they want to add to it? - Rjd0060 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I many cases yes, it has long been argued that articles should be kept on what they could be, not just what they are. I and other users frequently clean up articles brought to AFD, and I can go through WikiProject Schools channels to give the article more attention. Sources can be taken from the school website, and the few other secondary sources a Google search reveals. Offline sources, such as newspapers are also a possibility. Camaron1 | Chris 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ugh, directorycruft. Also WP:NN. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary into the town article. This page doesn't currently meet my personal High School notability criteria. — RJH (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES but rewrite. Smashville 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I apologize in advance for the sarcasm. Where on OUTCOMES does it say high schools should be kept? I must have missed it. On nearly every school AfD I contribute to, somebody brings this up. OUTCOMES does not contain any recommendations, nor suggestions, nor does it say what type of articles should/could stay on Wikipedia. It contains unverified statistics. - Rjd0060 22:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to sound rude, but it seems like a lazy vote, on Smashville's part, IMO. Don't worry about it. In fact I think there is a policy the discourages this type of rational, er rather non-rational, because it's like VOTING. Which we know that's not what Wikipedia is about, it's consensus that Wikipedia depends on, not VOTES! Jeeny (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a lazy vote - it's a vote based on precedent. "Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools being kept." Smashville 03:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent doesn't matter, and neither does that stupid list of statistics, unless of course, you show me where it says that all future AfD's about those topics should follow the "precedent" listed there. You can't, because it doesn't say that. In fact, it says the opposite, as CCC. - Rjd0060 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The "clear news coverage" is LOCAL! Here, there are many schools that have done something new and won awards and have been on the local news, because of one thing or another, but that does not make them notable on a wide enough scale for an encyclopedia. It is for the local press. Unless, it gains wide-spread NATIONAL coverage for something special, these types of school articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Agree with CRGreathouse as directorycruft. (sigh) Jeeny (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Forest Grove School District unless this improves greatly over the next couple of days, then I may change my !vote. Please do not suggest merging into city article, from which I split off the school district article to reduce clutter. It's better placed with the school district. I'll take care of the merge if that is the decision. BTW, the Oregonian is the statewide paper and a respected news source and should be considered a reliable source. There's nothing inherently wrong with local coverage unless it's a xeroxed weekly or something. Katr67 01:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As with all Afds, if the people who !vote keep would actually take some time to help improve the article, their opinions might have more weight. Katr67 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing to keep--notability far beyond that of most high schools has been well established and cited. People who are dismayed by directorycruft should take a second look, please. Katr67 00:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OUTCOMES demonstrates that high schools are notable per WP:CONSENSUS. Besides, it's the in depth subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. [35] [36] [37] --Oakshade 06:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no consensus, as the lack of a sorely needed WP:SCHOOL policy should be a hint of. And wp:outcomes is really a pathetic reason, much worse than wp:otherstuff (of which it is basically a grand generalisation). No, the reason not to keep is that "wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of yellow pages".--victor falk 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Other than a few rather stubborn obstructionists, consensus is amply clear that such schools are notable based on the outcomes of previous, failed AfDs. WP:OUTCOMES summarizes what consensus is based on the clear precedent in this area, and couldn't be any more useful in guiding action on all such articles. WP:NOT, the last gasp excuse for deletion of articles when no meaningfully valid Wikipedia policy can be referenced, could not be any more irrelevant here. Ample reliable and verifiable secondary sources have been added to fully satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable high school. and plenty of sources available for expansion. Now that it has been cleaned up and provided with multiple sources it sails through WP:N. TerriersFan 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, rotm school. Since the result of the school debate has been a firm no consensus dating back to 2004 (or earlier), citing WP:OUTCOMES is wishful thinking. Eusebeus 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though it was the in depth subject of multiple secondary pieces? --Oakshade 18:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 19:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is only relating to comments about those who believe notability is a national issue. Could you please point that out from WP:NOTE. I think you will find it is not there. Please cite actual policy and not your opinion. If you believe it should be national notability for a topic, first that argument needs to be taken to WP:NOTE, and secondly good luck with that arguement. As to The Oregonian, it has higher daily circulations than say the Seattle Times and Boston Herald, and covers a larger geographic area than either one, and has won numerous Pulitzer Prizes, so if that doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, then WP:RS is going to have to be ammended from "mainstream newspapers" to "newspapers that somepeople consider not local" and again good luck with that. Aboutmovies 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. It's not about the press is local or national or international, it is what about they write. Mentions in news articles such as "John Doe, who dropped out of Forest Grove High School in 1997, was arrested for...", or "many students of Forest Grove High School have been infected by this year's flu that is particularly virulent to teenagers...", or Forest Grove High School students to travel to sister city in Japan establish no notability whatsoever. I don't see any coverage[38] of Forest Grove High School for anything notable. Anyway, that's rather moot, as the article itself does not make any claim of notability. That is ground for speedy deletion, so this article is already given an unfair chance by being here at AfD at all.--victor falk 13:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you misunderstand. Please read the entire debate first. I never said they were notable or not. My comment was dirrected (as I outlined at the beginning of my comment) to the people who were saying The Oregonian newspaper was not a reliable source and that notability is on a national level. Both of those points are completely correct. Please strike-out your comments directed at me. Aboutmovies 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did. We agree that local press (such as 'the Oregonian') are wp:reliable and wp:verifiable sources for satisfying wp:n. My mistake. Note that what I dispute is not wether the sources for the claims to notability satisfy wp:rs and wp:v, but if the claims themselves meet wp:n--victor falk 21:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Victor falk, those articles do establish notabilty, to the letter of WP:NOTE; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."--Oakshade 21:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the following hypothetical news item: "Grand auto thievery red-lighted: The thief that had stolen Random Schmuck's car, who had bought it secondhand from Someguy X was apprehended by the police..." Would that be ground for an article about Someguy X? It wouldn't be even if he was the car thief. Replace Someguy X with Someschool X and that's the kind of "news coverage establishing notability" you find in this article.--victor falk 22:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage here is much more directly about the high school than that in the hypothetical scenario regarding Someguy X. --Oakshade 01:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I read your debate here, and honestly, all the effort here could have been used to rewrite article. Stop this silly AfD and keep the article for a rewrite - or merge it until the quality can be improved enough to go on its own. Its cool the shcool did the aussie teacher exchange thing! But, article needs some quality writing behind it - look at other schools and how they did it. Thanks for reading - T--T3Smile 12:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. There are 22,000 articles in the google news archive that mention FGHS. A lot of them are sports scores, but there are many that aren't. This could probably be made into a GA, if someone were to work on it hard enough. - Peregrine Fisher 17:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Hated Google Test yielding 22,000 hits is an indubitable proof of existence, not notability. See my comment above[39]. None of the current sources are better than my imaginary examples. What is needed is quality, not quantity; just a couple of article saying "Newsflash: FGHS is notable for suchandsuch". Then, and only then, can we discuss if suchandsuch meets WP:N--victor falk 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have gone through and cleaned it up, and added sources that demonstrate the notability of the school with non-trivial coverage. Aboutmovies 23:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dozen or so non trivial sources make this a no-brainer. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article now clearly meets the minimum standards of notability. -- DS1953 talk 01:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Alansohn. Twenty Years 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Auroranorth (sign) 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete – redundant. KrakatoaKatie 11:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of artists by nationality[edit]

Lists of artists by nationality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Redundant to Category:Lists of artists by nationality. The usual reasons for keeping a list that duplicates a category don't apply here, as no redlinked lists can be added to a "list of lists", so this will only ever be a redundant copy of the category. Masaruemoto 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, obselete. Thedreamdied 07:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 12:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ewulp 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful, well navigated list that should be kept. Modernist 11:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. —Modernist 11:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. See also: WP:USEFUL. Burntsauce 18:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If something being useful means delete to you - hey, thats quite an argument, but it doesn't really address these lists of artists by nationality. Modernist 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Burntsauce was pointing out that "just saying something is useful or useless without providing context is not helpful in the discussion." --Evb-wiki 01:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment point taken, I think these lists are useful to Visual Arts editors who encounter many of these artists names, some who are new to the ear but the presence on the list occassionally helps verification, notability, especially the lists from far away places - which is relative of course - and why the international lists are important. Modernist 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I think the proposal here is not to delete the various lists of artists by nationality, which are very useful, but just the single page Lists of artists by nationality, which serves as an index to those articles and which, as far as I can determine, is entirely redundant to the Category:Lists of artists by nationality. In seeking such an index, few users are likely to type the correct title "Lists of artists by nationality" into the box and hit go. For instance, a user looking for an article on a certain painter, who can't remember the name but thinks the painter was Icelandic, may type "Icelandic artist" into the box and hit search, in which case the first result that comes up is List of Icelandic artists. If the name isn't found there and the user begins to think the painter in question may be Finnish instead, a link leads to Category:Lists of artists by nationality. Everything can be accessed through the category, obviating any need for the article Lists of artists by nationality. Ewulp 04:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through the list the other day and made sure that all the listings are included in the category, and now they are, there were several that I had to include. I don't want to throw out information that isn't recoverable. Modernist 18:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep It's useful for us who care about pointless stuff like this. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 00:08 02 Nov, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per below arguments adn original authors blanking. --Tikiwont 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proprioceptive Method[edit]

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

Language learning method. Original research or close to it. No evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very deep thought indeed. Quote: Proprioception “is a . . . distinct sensory modality that provides feedback solely on the status of the body internally. It is the sense that indicates whether the body is moving with required effort, as well as where the various parts of the body are located in relation to each other.” Having no feedback other than on "the status of the body internally" -- how? with what kinds of sensor? -- we must infer that the language learners can't hear their own speech, hear or see others' reactions to their own speech, read their own writing, read or see others' reactions to their own writing, etc. This is emphasis on I-language carried to a nutty extreme. But of course (i) it's not for me to judge on the sanity of foreign language methodology, and (ii) en:WP provides coverage of plenty of other nutty theories. So is this stuff notable? It appears at first sight to come with a pile of impressive references, but a second look reveals that these are works on other areas of language, and don't describe the "Proprioceptive Method". Googling for the phrase brings up a book titled Writing the Mind Alive: The Proprioceptive Method for Finding Your Authentic Voice. Rather a ghastly cover on this paperback, but my tastes aside this is not a work about language learning. Googling for "proprioceptive method" NOT "mind alive" brings just 27 hits. Not atypical of the 27: Until: What does this icon mean? / You are reading a Whole Write, a proprioceptive method of spiritual practice designed to enhance the consciousness of the writer. I am drunk. I am writing in a beautiful, blissful, oh-so-subtle mode of awareness which is incredibly ... Ack. Anyway, not language learning. Non-notable, DELETE. -- Hoary 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you look back a couple versions it even says, "Because of its recent introduction, the primary description of this method comes from publications on the website itself in the books, Learning Spoken English and Learning a Spoken Second Language. A description of the method is given in Chapter 1 of the former book, Teaching Your Tongue to Speak English. Secondary sources are also becoming available, resulting from the website’s encouragement to publish and critically evaluate public domain material which is made available on that website." Adam Cuerden talk 07:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: this is an ad for the website freeenglishnow.com by any other name. There is no evidence that even a book with the title "Learning a Spoken Second Language" exists. By "book", we are to understand, a pdf file hosted on that website is referred to. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else: non-notable and complete bollocks, to boot. Moreschi Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - not opposed to deletion, but would like to see the proponent fill out the article in an encylopedic way, rather than promotional one. --Rocksanddirt 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original author has blanked the article with the phrase "Removed by original submitter. The criticisms were well founded. The article requires considerably more work." Think that counts as an author-request speedy? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 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 redirect to Avatar:The Last Airbender. None arguing to "keep and expand" have provided any hint of what out of universe source material may be available to expand from. Lacking out of universe material, it belongs on a fan wiki, not here. History will be left intact, feel free to change the redirect to a different target if desired or to utilize it to merge. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pai Sho[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable fictional game. No sources attest to the notability of this game either within the series or in a real-world context and the article itself has WP:OR problems. Otto4711 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Nick decides to release this as a board game, then I would have no problem with the article, but with the information now, it can't be salvaged. The Placebo Effect 04:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I like the article, but then again I'm hardly a fair and balanced observer (I'd like a scratched tin plate if it was packaged in a Avatar box). Without some kind of outside context, maybe a serious effort by some company to make a real-world version of the game, it really is an unimportant article with no relevance outside the show. However, instead of deleting it, I think we should merge it with another Avatar page, perhaps one explaining the culture of the world, since its information isn't inaccurate in and of itself, and the game is important within the show (Apparently more and more so as the series progresses). Now we just need to find some page that somehow pertains to Pai Sho that isn't fan-cruft in and of itself. JBK405 03:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this game will have an increasing importance in the Avatar series. I predict (after seeing up to episode 3:4) that the Order of the White Lotus will have an increasing role in leading the resistance. Iroh has hinted over and over that the White Lotus is more then a game. In 3:4 Iroh (via the recap) and the sword master implied that the society is committed to the advancement of art unrelated to politics and nations. It doesn't hurt that the article is well written and has a good graphic. Still I think the importance of this game has not been fully revealed. --michael180 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Should the game become more important, and should there be reliable sources that attest to the importance/notability of the game, then the article can be recreated. See also WP:PRETTY. The style or appearance of the article isn't relevant. Otto4711 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand, as the game has been a recurring plot element throughout the series, a fact that is not explored in the article as it exists currently. A section explaining its relevance to the plot would make the article more useful and less likely to be deleted. (Failing this, merge it with another article.) -- Lampbane 19:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as users above state the game is a notable feature as a plot device within the avatar universe and almost serves as it's 'Quidich'. I think as the show develops more will become known about the mechanics, but someone needs to find the specific episode references & cite them to keep seperate, or just merge into the Avatar article as is to highlight the position of this game. Deleting during the 3rd series only to recreate if a later episode increases its value seems a pointless exercise. Nli10 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand, I agree with the above. The White Lotus tile that was given to Sokka in the episode "Sakka's Master," which shows the continued importance in the series. There is no reason to delete the article at all. Unfamiliarity with a major fantasy series should not result in a major element of the series being removed from Wikipedia Project Shadow —Preceding comment was added at 06:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is easy to say that something is a major aspect. It is more difficult to provide reliable real-world citations for it. Please back up your claims about the notability of the fictional game with sources. Otto4711 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's notability within the universe is provided by the show itself; it has been used several times as both a key and peripheral plot device (Specific episodes are The Waterbending Scroll, The Desert, and Sokka's Master). Notable to the real world...well, that's something else; like I said, it's really not notable at all outside of Avatar (Some people have actually tried to build three-dimensional chess based on Star Trek, and hologrphic chess based on Star Wars, but there's no third party real world Pai Sho). Hence why it should be merged into another article instead of being deleted; its info is relevent to the universe as a whole, and could be presented as part of a larger, source article that perhaps dealt with inspirations/references/developments in and about the Avatar universe. JBK405 04:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-fiction about Chicago[edit]

List of non-fiction about Chicago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Just a list of non notable books, apparently just having been published is the only criterion, so this could potentially list thousands of titles related to Chicago. Masaruemoto 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Chicago is huge subject, which means that any completed version of this list (assuming, of course, that completion was even possible) would be so large as to be useless. In addition, the only linking page in the article namespace is a redirect from List of non-fiction set in Chicago, despite the fact that the article in question is nearly three years old. If it hasn't been of value in that time, I doubt it ever will be. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Canuck85 06:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to broad an inclusion criteria. 11:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom and others. Violates WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 03:47, 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. History is available if anyone cares to merge, but I don't see consensus for it below. GRBerry 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Gohan[edit]

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

I'm quite surprised that this horribly written article has not been deleted or redirected to Son Gohan. Regardless of whether the character passes WP:N or not, we don't need an article on Gohan's teen years. Delete. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect He is just Gohan while a teenager. At least there is a case for Trunks and Future Trunks having seperate articles (Future Trunks being a grown up Trunks traveling back in time). TJ Spyke 04:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This information belongs in the article on Son Gohan. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Son Gohan. Canuck85 06:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Son Gohan. T--T3Smile 12:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Son Gohan. TyrannoRanger 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect' to Son Gohan. These two characters aren't even as separate as, say, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker. --Gwern (contribs) 19:44 25 October 2007 (GMT)
  • Redirect to Son Gohan Captain panda 00:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - just a stub of the existing article Son Gohan under a different name. [[Guest9999 12:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
  • Merge or redirect There need not be two articles for Gohan. Viperix 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, information can presented in Son Gohan article. Doctorfluffy 01:40, 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 - fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. KrakatoaKatie 10:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giblink[edit]

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

Recently speedied as spam, this website seems to be a version of the old Ponzi scheme -- all the references are self-generated or from blogs or other non-notable sites -- I don't want Wikipedia to lend this non-notable enterprise any credence. Accounting4Taste 04:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The version that was speedied as spam was quite a bit more spammy. I was of two minds about nominating this, because the website may actually have generated quite a bit of short-term buzz and I don't know if it's better to expose it for what it is through Wikipedia, or not lend it any credence -- so I'll let the community decide. Accounting4Taste 04:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing notability per WP:WEB. I couldn't turn up any sources that were more than press releases (PR only on google, and 10 press releases on google news), and I didn't see any mention of them winning any notable awards. Bfigura (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite Accounting4Taste's point, I go along with Bfigura about failing WP:WEB. Pigman 04:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that gibLink is a relatively new phenomenon, providing a site description "...in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known..." is rather difficult because the achievements, impact and historical significance at this point is somewhat unclear due to the relative recent appearance of the phenomenon. The community may benefit from a balanced presentation from knowledgeable persons (moreso than I). I think the ball is worth kicking about to see which direction of the field it winds up traveling to. Tosshoo 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I may have touched on this indirectly in the note I left you, but basically, if we can't prove notability during the AfD, this should probably be deleted. It's not a big deal to recreate it once more sources become available. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No argument with that point. I added a request for notable in the main article, if it is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, perhaps a move to WikiNews would be appropriate, I am not familiar with how to do so. Hopefully the request for notable will attract some further edits. There is quite a bit of information on the phenomenon found on Squidoo.com Tosshoo 05:31, 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 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdan Kacmajor[edit]

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

Unreferenced biographical stub, claims made but not backed - delete per WP:BIO Sfacets 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've searched google and several databases and havn't been able to find anything to confirm notability. I havn't been able to find a single news piece on him. - Shudde talk 04:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability per WP:BIO. I couldn't find any sources either. Pigman 04:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, however, i had no clue that God was popular in Poland ;) -Drdisque 17:32, 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 18:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black religious cults[edit]

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

"Black religious cults"displays a mere 20 google hits. It appears to be an OR juxtaposition of terms. Sfacets 03:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V and WP:NOR. The first source linked from the article doesn't even have the word "black" in it, while the second refers to spirituality among African-Americans, which is different from the article's purported topic. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article suffers from POV, OR and verifiability issues. J Milburn 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of unreferenced claims. Mindraker 12:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per jonny-mt. This article is mostly OR. Doctorfluffy 02:08, 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 — a number of votes gave no rationale for their recommendation, so I cannot weight them. However, with that said, most of the "improve" comments showed no demonstration that it could be improved, and were countered by assertions that notable characters were already included elsewhere. --Haemo 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amalgam Comics characters[edit]

List of Amalgam Comics characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete article that is one massive mess of unsourced, unexplained claims. Yes, DC and Marvel published some comics in which they merged their companies' characters. They did not publish enough issues for this many characters to have made appearances. Given that this article has almost no citations for which issue each appeared in, out of its hundreds of entries, it looks like people are adding fan fiction and bogus material, taking this article beyond the point at which it is useful in any shape, form, or fashion. The Amalgam Comics article already lists the relevant publications, which talk about the characters that matter. Otherwise, these names are not notable and often indistinguishable from hoaxes without a HUGE amount of research. Doczilla 03:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the characters aren't "fan fiction and bogus material" or "hoaxes" as far as I can tell - the reason there are a lot more characters than could fit in the publications are because a lot of the Amalgam output is metafictional - they built a large an elaborate world populated by various characters only some of which got actual comic book outings. That said the article is a mess and needs a lot of work, but that in itself isn't cause for deletion. (Emperor 04:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete another endless fancruft sprawl. There is an Amalgam Comics page which has much of this info, each book has it's own page where much of this is and should be listed, if you start going through all this it is enless ever character has it's own page, ever team has there own page. Dozens of pages about a barely notable short lived piece of comics history. The main Amalagam page should be rewritten and most of this merged or just gotten rid of. Ridernyc 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and improve. Throw out anything that doesn't have a specific issue cite. And for goodness' sake, let's remove the metafictional characters -- they're just throwaway mentions not full characters, and it's way too easy for "clever" wags to make up names and add them to the list.--Tenebrae 14:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge and improve . WikiPedia is not paper. 132.205.99.122 20:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the important Amalgam characters appear to have their own articles in Category:Amalgam Comics characters and subcats. I would suggest the categorisation of anyone not already in this cat, and then the deletion of this list of the remaining minor characters, due to original research concerns. -- saberwyn 02:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the main amalgam page has most of the real work. I am concerned though, that there are probably 200+ pages with 'amalgam appearances' notes in them. All that stuff should also be hunted down and stripped out as well. If this article goes, finding all of them might take time. (and really.. Bat-X? Artemisty Knight? Did I miss Amalgam Comics two or three or what?) ThuranX 11:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An article that list the numerous combined and recombined characters gets to the essence of this unique imprint. The characters should be cited and sourced, but that does not equate into deletion. I would feel that due to size and length this should remain a sub article of the Amalgam article. 66.109.248.114 20:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not worth it to have an article that is never cited by reliable sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's better then having the info strewn across Wiki. Bluecatcinema 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even though I nominated this thing, I have no problem with the idea of keeping it, but I wasn't going to go through and delete all the unsourced items without input from other editors. Otherwise, the main individual who devoted so much time to adding them might have viewed such broad gutting of his/her work as vandalism. Doczilla 20:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment- Is this a withdrawl of a nominations? If so, discussion is then closed. 66.109.248.114 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. No. I said nothing about withdrawing the nomination. I said I'm okay with either possible outcome. My vote hasn't changed. A deletion gets this mess cleaned up easier than a keep. Doczilla 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 00:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of thieves[edit]

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

WP:NOT#IINFO; too broad and all-inclusive to be of any encyclopedic value, including people like Prometheus, Ronnie Biggs, The Grinch, Ocean's Eleven, etc. Masaruemoto 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Funny joke, actually. Pavel Vozenilek 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as an indiscriminate collection of info. This list would be impossible to maintain and would, theoretically, become a huge list. The criteria is also very, very loose. Useight 04:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above but particularly because it's too broad to be useful. Pigman 04:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Canuck85 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inclusion criteria way to broad. Ridernyc 11:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Although the mythological section is interesting. adriatikus | 18:27, 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 18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous of Boxing[edit]

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

Redlink farm, superceded by categories. east.718 at 02:53, 10/25/2007 02:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, serves little navigational purpose, and the redlinks are trivial cross-categorizations. --Dhartung | Talk 03:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dhartung - Shudde talk 04:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much useless as its 90% redlinks. Canuck85 06:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not much chance of evolving into something more useful.--Fabrictramp 23:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow an article title like this almost begs to become a trivia farm. No, it demands it. Burntsauce 18:24, 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. DS 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magyar Posta Hungarian Rugby League Championship[edit]

This is a hoax article. There is no such competition in Hungary WWGB 02:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete After a search I agree. - Shudde talk 04:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. The Warsaw Woodworms? Hah! Corvus cornix 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I contacted the hungarian sports federation to find this league was real surprisingly! however the play is of quite a low standard User:Launcestonhurtunta
  • I must say i have been to a game in this competition-which although played at a low stadard, is completely real and the article is 100% true. The only reason there is so little information on it is because the compteition has made no profit and has no media support —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUYTRID (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the current list of "Hungarian rugby league puppets": [40] [41] [42][43] [44] [45] [46] WWGB 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax. This one seems to have been copy-pasted from the article on the UK Super League, but the hoaxer/s didn't bother to get rid of the bottom half of the original article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:43, 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 deleted, blocked all involved sockpuppets. DS 16:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian national rugby league team[edit]

This is a hoax article. There is no rugby league organised competition in Hungary WWGB 02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is nothing remotely similar between those two teams. One is a recognised international football team, the other exists solely in the mind of a child. WWGB 08:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're not similar, but this would serve the dual purpose of redirecting people who search for the incorrect term to the proper page and, if the redirect was protected, prevent the hoax article from being created again. After all, I think recreation is a valid concern given the effort that has been put into this hoax article so far. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after contacting the Hungarian Olympic committee (which has authority over all sports in Hungary) i found that Hungary in fact does have a national rugby league team with Australians of Hungarian origin playing for the side-this is not a hoax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drenthe11 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and of course we will believe you! Put up your evidence or shut up. WWGB 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this competition although played at a far lower level than the NRL or superleague is a real competition. I have been to a game played in Budapest against the Debrecen Wolves —Preceding unsigned comment added by Launcestonhurtunta (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the current list of "Hungarian rugby league puppets": [47] [48] [49][50] [51] [52] [53] WWGB 23:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version as a hoax (some of the names give it away - "Phil McGroin", for example, I also can't find any record of their record defeat by Wales). There may in fact be some level of rugby league played in Hungary, since a lot of unexpected places play it, but it's probably a better idea to zap this one and re-create it if non-hoax material can be sourced. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus leaning towards deletion. Very enlightening afd I can recommend the The New Physician for an out look on student life, I view "Yeosamity Sam" and "Bon Jovi" in a completely different light after reading that. BTW after reading all the sources, the term Gunner in relation to students it would be appropriate for it to have a Wiktionary definition. The other sources are more first person accounts or incidental definitions, nothing of what I read could be considered reliable in depth coverage to sustain independent notability in the face of WP:NOT#DICT.

What wasnt covered in this discussion is the possibility of a merge to Student#Other terms, after what I read it would IMHO be the ideal option for the article content. Gnangarra 10:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner (student)[edit]

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

I'm not arguing the term doesn't exist, however, the citations are a blog post and a 600-member facebook group. Surely there are other sources, or even media mentions, if it's something worth keeping. Cantras 02:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete I'd actually go so far as to say that this article should have been speedied the moment it was created. Google searching shows no hits for this use of the term, and The sources cited are a far cry from being reliable. This seems to be little more than a neologism at best and a description of a type A personality in an academic setting at worst. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. This is far from a "speedy" candidate. This term has been in use for years. See, for example, NPR.org, Stetson Law Review Harvard Law Record, this book, The New York Observer, The New Physician, Juris Publici, and this other book. The reason I'm neutral on this is that the topic may be more suited for Wiktionary than encyclopedic treatment. --Metropolitan90 05:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. Your Googling skills are clearly much better than mine, so I'll have to concede my comments about Google hits and neologisms above. However, I think the nominator's point is that the article doesn't currently use any such sources to establish notability. So if I could probe your position a little further, assuming that the topic is appropriate for encyclopedic content, do you think that the article as it is could be reworked to include those references? --jonny-mt(t)(c) 08:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's the problem. I'm not sure this topic is appropriate for encyclopedic content. So any reworking of this article to include references such as those above should be done by someone who believes in keeping the article. --Metropolitan90 05:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Fascinating - its a delete unless you include the references Metropolitan90 has noted here. Re-Edit, include refs, make coherent, and STUB it. Cheers T--T3Smile 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Needs more (reliable) sources, at a minimum. Mindraker 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even with reliable sources, it's still little more than a dictdef, and would be better served at Wiktionary. Corvus cornix 20:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary--victor falk 09:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Some of the refs found by Metropolitan90 go beyond defining the term and go on to deal with their effectys on the class and the reactions of professors and fellow students. I will copy the list of refs, with acknowledgment of Metropolitan90, to the discussion page so someone can incorporate them to improve the article. Edison 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable phrase, better suited for wiktionary. Doctorfluffy 03:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly move to wiktionary. A dicdef at best. GregorB 19:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if Edison is prepared to improved it. I think the sources are available. DGG (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Two things are certain - this article is primarily OR, yet there are well-put arguments in its defense. Given the current discussion I cannot delete this article at this time, but if no one can (or will) demonstrate that a sourceable article exists behind this OR, a subsequent AFD might not bode well for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi effect[edit]

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

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

  • week delete Seems like a newish term and if there were sources it might be a good article. Right now doesnt meet criteria ForeverDEAD 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non notable neologism without any reliable sources to verify otherwise. NeoFreak 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NeoFreak. Majoreditor 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poor writing style, non notable per NeoFreak --Astroview120mm 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per NeoFreak (right on the nose.) - Rjd0060 05:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I certainly see the point that the article at the moment seems like original research, not referencing much, and being too short, it's still a real phenomena that is easily observable so it should be described somewhere as it is notable. If someone can point me to another article on Wikipedia where it's already described, I'll change my vote to Delete. Debolaz 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (on the fence) There's about 1,500 ghits (- the "Spacecraft" and "Susan Nash" album references) that seem to cover a wide variety of the uses of the phrase in different forums. While probably a neologism, appears to have been out there for a while & is used by different groups. SkierRMH 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- possible merge to a hunting article if appropiate, otherwise looks like WP:OR Thunderwing 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per [54] [55] and [56] the term does seem to be notable, as it used by a variety of reliable sources. However, the articles mention it is used in a wildlife management context, so I'm guessing that either most references are locked away in journals or are not featured prominently on the Internet. There is probably a scientific name for it as well. I'd suggest keeping it and either expanding (WikiProject Environment could help here) or redirecting it to the proper scientific term (if one exists). 124.148.48.20 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references found by 124-148.48.20, and see also this reference [[57]] (its a google cache of a lost page, but of a valid peer-reviewed Journal article) that shows the concept has been a real part of scholarly discourse since at LEAST 1996. 11+years seems a long time for a neologism, and there appears to be lots of real, scholarly discussion in reliable souces dealing with this concept. Easily passes WP:N guidelines, and this concept appears to be discussed enough by said reliable sources that it is also clearly NOT original research.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That last article does not mention a Bambi effect in so many words. It merely says that Bambi had an effect, which I think is different. If I researched, I may well find articles saying that the book and film of Tarka the Otter had a similar effect in respect of hunting in the UK, but no one talks about a "Tarka-effect" as far as I know. My point is that a source that does not refer to this "effect" as the Bambi effect may not serve as suitable evidence of notability. MikeHobday 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In isolation, no it wouldn't, but it does act as a support source for the prior 3 references. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — I'm not sure how many more examples we need. The term is referenced in lots of blogs but I won't refer to them even though they demonstrate that the term has entered the popular vernacular. It's in The Urban Dictionary, it's described on EconomyPoint.org, The "Oneness Commitment", a sort of New Age community, has an encyclopedia entry on it, where it's referenced in six articles, Mother Linda's News refers to it and check out page 17 of these lecture notes from a zoology course at the University of Wisconsin. There are scads and scads of examples of where the term is used, in the fashion of this article, in the popular culture out there. A search on Google for "Bambi Effect" returns 1600 hits and, from a subsample I took, about 25% of them are direct hits on the term as used in the article and about an equal number are oblique references to it. I'm assuming good faith and, as a result, I realise that those recommending deletion are not doing so for POV reasons. Therefore, I challenge each of you to do the google search for yourself to see if this is, indeed, a neologism that has no cultural currency and that it does not describe something that is relevant to this encyclopedia. I, for one, was neutral until I proved to myself that this article should be kept. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a minor comment, you can't use the Urban Dictionary as a source anymore than you can a Wiki since it is also user created. I could make up something and add it to the UD tonight if I wanted to. TJ Spyke 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The additional reference shown above are sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NEO in the absence of sources that are substantially about the term rather than simply using the term. Otto4711 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although the article in its current state smacks of original research, I think the fact that a number of sources have been found so far indicates that this is a real phenomenon. I would, however, suggest paring it down to the bare minimum, tagging it as a stub (if it's not already), and trying to find some stronger sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with sources added, the article describes a concept that is supported using reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. See this Google news Archive search for additional sources. Some of our early voters may want to revisit the article in light of the sources added. Alansohn 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Someone invented a catch-phrase and its notable. Ugh. What if you haven't watched Bambi and still get the effect? Wouldn't it be a psychological symptom in people that has another description elsewhere? Could it Merge with something that already exists? I was nearly on neutral on this one, maybe more sources would compel me to be claiming Bambi Effect on those roo shooters one day. T--T3Smile 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boren's Syndrome[edit]

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

No notability declared whatsoever. Does not, and will never, contain more information than a couple of sentences. Man It's So Loud In Here 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Crap! Yourname 01:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fictional disease and fairly minor Halo plot point. Halopedia already has an article on this, so do not transwiki this there. --Coredesat 06:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. • Lawrence Cohen 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect to Halo: First Strike 132.205.99.122 20:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 03:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Burntsauce 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too minor a bit of fictional information to warrent its own article, and the information would be best placed elsewhere in existing articles on Halo fiction. I would also ask that people not be so harsh in their words of condemnation regarding this article, the article creator has only ever made two edits to Wikipedia so far, including this article. Best not to scare a new editor away from Wikipedia. - Fearless Son 01:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Author was banned for repeated vandalism; admin saw fit to delete this page too. Non-admin-closure. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EC-Canadian Vortex[edit]

EC-Canadian Vortex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Obviously hoaxy pseudo-scientific article. Its amusing in some regard, probably got some laughs among the gaming clan, but far from encyclopedic. Fully fails WP:V, and wastes everybody's time. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Canuck85 07:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nonsense about a non-notable group. Corvus cornix 20:30, 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. KrakatoaKatie 10:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zendik Farm[edit]

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

It is obvious that Zendik Farm is using Wikipedia as a form of advertisement. Jyre, being an agent of Zendik Farm, has proven his bias from his first edits and will continue to find ways to present the ZF article favorably. I also was once a resident of Zendik Farm and attended meetings where such tactics have been discussed. KyroZendik 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it looks interesting, and gets enough hits in the Google News Archive to suggest notability. But I suggest it'd be good for the article to take it to WP:COI/N; it'd be better if no-one with a personal involvement - either pro or anti - be directly editing it. Gordonofcartoon 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, company that sells CDs and t-shirts. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather more to the story than that: check out the Google News Archive. Gordonofcartoon 03:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to get coverage in one of the main Texas papers every other year or so. Note that there seem to be unrelated Zendik Farms in WV and NC as well. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to be able to read the Hip Forum discussion that past and present members of Zendik Farm participated in to get a grasp of WHY there is such heated debate over this subject. Also check out the history of edits on the Zendik Farm page where you'll see how other Zendiks edited it. here is the Hip Forum link: http://www.hipforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-4937-p-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by KyroZendik (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in what web forums say about it. They're not reliable sources, and this particular link has been repeatedly removed from the article. BTW, if KyroZendik is some disaffected member, WP:COI applies to him/her too. Gordonofcartoon 11:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gordonofcartoon. It needs improvement and to be free of WP:COI, but it seems to be somewhat notable. --Evb-wiki 12:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and a few searches. Notable enough. • Lawrence Cohen 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It definitely needs more eyes to counter the POV pushing in both directions and maintain our verifiability requirements. But it's a subject worthy enough of an article. -- SiobhanHansa 16:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current version seems to just state the facts. If you deleted every external link that sold t-shirts, an awful lot of them would go. Keith Henson 18:58, 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 speedily deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 03:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim ftw[edit]

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

Originally prodded as a non notable biography, prod was removed by author without comment. The "revolt" utterly fails WP:V and any sort of notability standard you wish to apply to it, and its "leader" even less so. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment first. I just nominated the article for CSD, as to be fair, there really isnt any real notabilty asserted. But if that is unsuccessful, then Delete on "something made up at school grounds". FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense per the second definition in WP:PN. JuJube 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per above. --TGreenburgPR 02:44, 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 spam. --Coredesat 06:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strathcona Wrestling Federation[edit]

Strathcona Wrestling Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is about a non-notable Alberta Wrestling Federation in a small town and also, the article looks in part spammy. Although I could have deleted imediately the article, I prefer a vote at AFD but I suggest a delete per advertisement and non-notability JForget 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable org, and most of the article is written like a flyer, complete with who to talk to to sign up! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, you guys aren't nice. its jsut a small organization, i am working on it. soon i bettya this will be huge. it is almost like WWE wrestling so it wouldn't be in the Alberta Wrestling Federation, and give me a break, its me and some friends. We did this just to make us feel better. It is my first article i made. and it is not spammy. why don't you JForget and Starblind come and face all 12 of us, winner can do whatever the want with this page. that goes for everyone. User:DXhommie —Preceding comment was added at 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find your concept of deciding article deletion issues based on the outcome of wrestling matches intriguing, and invite you to propose it as a new official Wikipedia policy. For now, though, you may want to peruse WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blatant spam, the entire article sounds like a want ad. TJ Spyke 03:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:Notable or WP:Verifiable and is close to, if not infringing, WP:SPAM. If not eligible for speedy deletion, then wait until it's talking to the referee, sneak up from behind and hit it over the head with a folding chair, throw it over the top rope and claim victory. Accounting4Taste 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat Offender (band)[edit]

Repeat Offender (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedy deleted then undeleted as writer requested more time to prove notability. Time has been given and notability still appears not to have been asserted as per WP:MUSIC. No significant record releases, and no significant media coverage. Mere mentions in the press, such as press releases or listings or notifications/adverts in local papers of gigs do not qualify as significant. Delete. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention that I have read the article "no one cares about your garage band" and none of those factors apply to Repeat Offender.Repeatoffender4031 23:55, 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 17:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming To God[edit]

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

Prodecural nom; I've just declined a speedy-delete request on this as while the article is right on the margin of an A7, it appears to be potentially expandable and not a two-guys-with-a-myspace-page band. Despite the one album, I'm not convinced it passes WP:BAND, but am certainly willing to be convinced. Lots of hits but no reliable sources that I can find; however, since they're from pre-internet days it may be that the press exists but hasn't made it online. Bringing it over in case anyone can dig coverage out. BTW, ignore the deleted version in the log; that wasn't deleted on notability grounds, but was a totally different version deleted as a copyvio. I'm sitting on the fence regarding this one as I think it's very borderline, so I abstain. — iridescent 22:16, 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, Coredesat 05:12, 25 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, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Needs sources other than the band's own Myspace page. If the band were notable, there would be something to dig up. Mindraker 12:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless verifiable sources are presented supporting notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verifiable sources are added. A1octopus 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused as to why this is recommended for deletion or is considered not verifiable - google search on [stg no longer human] brings up band website - most press on this band is probably pre-internet but there are other bands who are not deleted from wikipedia who are similar in regards to genre/time frame i.e. hate dept and kevorkian death cycle LAF 19:47, 26 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.68.246 (talk)
    There are many non verifiable sources on the web. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:20, 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 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suite Village[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Wittman[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Jerome[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 05:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. W.marsh 20:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim White (reporter)[edit]

Tim White (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

  • Keep - seven seasons as host of a major network show is fairly notable, as are the multiple regional Emmy awards[58]http://www.nataslgl.org/emmy/winners99.html] he's won. There are two more from his work in Washington, DC that I can't find specific cites for, but are in his bio. Which also indicates he's hosted numerous shows for other networks. Problem: parts of this article look to be lifted from said bio - but that's repairable. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. W.marsh 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sleepless Nights (band)[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

  • I think they're going to get to the point where they meet WP:MUSIC guidelines eventually, but right now they're still not quite getting there. If someone has more media coverage that would qualify as reliable sources, I'd be interested to see it, but for the moment weak delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coredesat 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, the sourcing concerns are not addressed by substantial sourcing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Que bono[edit]

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

I'm not finding the reliable sources to show that this is a notable band. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the BBC a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.45.13 (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I found the BBC link but have problems opening it so I cannot verify it. I could not find a second verifiable source as required by WP:MUSIC. There does not seem to be an international presence which is also required. The demo disk and the live performance disk is not helpful. However, the remain cut was supposedly recorded by Naked Records. However, the recording was in 1981 and the label was founded in the 1990s. So, to me, that entry in the article is suspect. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 15:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The record "company" was set up by the band in 1981 for the release of one single. So they were entirely different companies with the same name, not unlikely for such a generic word to be used twice more than a decade apart. Masaruemoto 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just opened the BBC link. All it states is this: John Peel Session: 09/06/1981 - Que Bono. Producer - Dale Griffin, Engineer - Mike Robinson, Studio - Langham 1. TRACKLIST Burton Wood, Houses, Twister, Siren's Scream. LINE UP: Pete Mulvihill (Drums), Jane Mulvihill (Vocals), Alan Maskell (Guitar) Simon Hall (Bass)Seahamlass 17:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seahamlass (talk • contribs)

  • Keep; The Peel Sessions are significant (there is List of Peel Sessions and Category:Peel Sessions recordings). Appearing on Peel Sessions means they just about pass WP:MUSIC #12; "Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network", and that's only based on what can be verified online. There are other claims that also pass WP:MUSIC, but can't be easily verified. Masaruemoto 04:12, 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, Coredesat 06:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Peel Sessions bands should be notable enough. 96T 08:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The band did indeed exist and are already listed elsewhere in Wikipedia for the entry for Town Hall Steps magazine. Articles on the band can be found at the Town Hall Steps website Town Hall Steps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcgibbons (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a viable argument. Besides, it seems this user was the one who added the mention of Que Bono to that page just minutes after writing this review. Okiefromoklabut I'm not a hick 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even with the Peel Sessions. And that's only because no one (including myself, I tried) can find reliable documentation about this band. We simply can't have an article that can't be sourced. And keep in mind, .com and .co.uk websites aren't necessarily reliable sources. Certainly, one .co.uk website is not sufficient to cite an article. So far, all it seems we've been able to find from more reliable sources (BBC being the only one that I found) is that the band existed and was on Peel Sessions. Okiefromoklabut I'm not a hick 17:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: if there were articles about Que Bono on the Town Hall Steps website, I think I would look at this a little differently. But, upon checking it out, there is only one readable online blurb, which doesn't say much. Okiefromoklatalk to me 19:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divaldo Pereira Franco[edit]

Divaldo Pereira Franco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Found this as proposed deletion with the reason: "No sources cited, no assertion of notability". Now there are some claims and also some Portuguese references (as well as an entry on the Portuguese wiki), but their reliability is unclear. So brought here for wider discussion (and without recommendation.) Tikiwont 12:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I'm unclear on which notability criteria applies here. I'm loathe to put it down to "he can talk with spirits, therefore he's notable", because there's no scientific basis for that. The article implies that his religion healed his sickness, which I feel we need to avoid on a factual encyclopaedia. All I can find in the article that might assert notability is that he founded the ""House of Assistance" (Mansão do Caminho)", which although it seems a nice idea, bear in mind it orientates as well as educates. It could therefore just as easily be a Sunday school as a respected charity. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article worthiness. If I'm allowed, I'll keep working to make this article neutral, in compliance with the guidelines and with supported facts because and convinced that it is worth it. The faculty of talking to Spirits is known as Mediumship, a concept already in Wikipedia. But it is not his mediumship that makes this individual worth of writing about, but his role as leader of Kardecian Spiritism or Spiritism (ref:Allan Kardec), his charity work and his career as speaker for more than 60 years, invited six times to the U.N. etc., all facts that I'll try to support with reliable sources. I appreciate your help and your welcoming words. I've been having some problems with my internet connection, but I'll get back asap.

Lou72 14:25, 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, Coredesat 06:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Seems notable unless this is a massive hoax. See here Portugese Wiki. The Englich article does need clean up and better refs.Obina 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added 5 refs to the article. The multiple sources show notability. While the statement that he can talk to spirits may not be easily verified, the statements that he is an author and speaker is. Notable in Brazil is notable.Obina 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to keep, but the sources listed are still not verifiable. Perhaps if someone could re-source via the multitude of books on the subject . . . Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be notable enough and is getting sourced. Davewild 06:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Ecologists[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 02:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Lovett[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character from a soap opera. I can find no reliable out of universe reference material on this character, and do not believe that it is probably available at all. The article appears to be mainly unreferenced speculation regarding the show, and without source material, this problem is unfixable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article outlines the story line for a fictional character in a canceled soap opera. The non sourced material appears non notable. --Stormbay 00:08, 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, Coredesat 06:08, 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.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DDOJSIOC[edit]

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

Non-notable film minutiae. Neutralitytalk 06:15, 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, Coredesat 06:08, 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.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Circle[edit]

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

Delete contested prod; dormitories for a university, without any WP:RSes to show why there are notable. Carlossuarez46 04:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, let alone sources to establish notability. - TexasAndroid 13:51, 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection & Advocacy, Inc.[edit]

Protection & Advocacy, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG; no evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. Largely a rehash of primary sources affiliated with the subject, combined with WP:COATRACK problems. Deleted as an expired prod (see page log), but then re-created by the now-banned User:Ombudsman with the edit summary "restore unscrupulously vandalized article" (!) MastCell Talk 04:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 08:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as MastCell says, no non-trivial independent sources are cited, and a quick look around the Googleshere doesn't find any which would make the case for notability. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 23 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celution[edit]

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

WP:CORP Eeso 03:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this isn't a page about a corporation, WP:CORP does not apply. It's about a process. I see a stub with a reference to a reputable source, but that doesn't say much i kan reed 05:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a tangible product of a company - the "Celution System" - one I can't see to be notable. In addition I find no information available that doesn't read like a press release. No mention in peer reviewed journals, etc... Eeso 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BBC has a story about the process, and calls it "Celution." It's also mentioned elsewhere. It's notable. --Alksub 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It might be easier to just take this one sentence and merge it into an article on breast augmentation or whatever.-Wafulz 01:54, 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a new solution to an age old problem is not notable. There is no indication of meeting notability, even with a few press mentions. Even the Times is not a guaranty of notability Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim —Preceding comment was added at 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be a speedy under A1. A3, A7 or G11. Vegaswikian 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing that really indicates notability. Doctorfluffy 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would have probably relisted this if it hadn't already been relisted, since it's very hard to ascertain consensus from such a low turnout when opinions are divided. Both sides deliver some valid opinions, while both sides also deliver some less valid ones (for example, poor style is not a reason to delete, but then, other stuff existing is not a reason to keep). So, in the end, I simply do not see any consensus here at all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Villagetech solutions[edit]

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

A noble cause, to be sure, but noble ≠ notable. This group is little different than the 1000s of little organizations striving to improve the lot of the 3rd world. nn. Carlossuarez46 03:50, 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Style can be fixed, but I cannot find an inkilng of notability. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of less notable things kept in the wikipedia. Removing this raises the bar too high. Lack of sources for a project in the "3rd world" needs to be evaluated in the assumption that eventually the technology will reach such areas and more information will pour out. For example, pictures of the bridges, satellite vies of the areas, cultural importance of the bridges, etc. Jeff Carr 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article can easily be improved by additional links and categorization to meet notable criteria. Number of references in media will obviously be lower for articles related to 3rd world. Inwind 19:10, 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. --Coredesat 03:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Kendrick[edit]

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

Delete nn fashion model, model of the week from some nn website, some paying gigs for big names doesn't equal notability - even if sources could be found for any of the claims. Carlossuarez46 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copied from the talk page: This should not be deleted because Wikipedia is a source to learn information about people and issues both current and historical. I, personally have used this site to learn about models which are currently coming to dominate the fashion scene and this male model is one of them. You may not personally use it to research people such as this, but it is a very helpful tool to us working in the fashion industry. As this male model transgresses into what may be male "supermodel" status if you will, I am sure this page will continue to develop. Furthermore, many outsiders like to follow current working models and Wikipedia is a great way to not only keep up to date, but also gather background information on them. With that being said, I would see it as a selfish act to delete this entry. -- Thefashionspot1 (talk contribs)
  • Delete unless some reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 17:21, 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot believe that anyone working in the fashion industry uses Wikipedia as a source rather than trade directories! Not yet notable, so delete Emeraude 11:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn fashion model, which is to say as spledid a career as he may have, he does not meet WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a trade directory. It is an encyclopedia. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stumbled across this page while hitting alt+x. This guy may at some point become a big-name model. Until then, he does not deserve a Wikipedia entry. If at some point, he becomes more well known, this article can always be recreated. Delete. Parsecboy 02:37, 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. --Coredesat 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lupton[edit]

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

Delete promo piece for the subject authored by a WP:SPA. Essential assertion of notability is she was one of 600 US delegates to a UNESCO conference. Needless to say, there are lots of conferences, hundreds of delegates to each - perhaps thousands - getting selected for one doesn't make you notable. The rest of the claims are that she has well-known associates, but notability doesn't rub off from your friends. Carlossuarez46 03:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think it means one of 600 total delegates, not just from the US. I still don't think that's enough and this article's awfully promotional in nature. 1 gnews hit, mentioned as survivor in an obituary. <100 ghits, nothing that looked great as a ref. Fails WP:N badly.Horrorshowj 05:03, 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, Coredesat 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Talk[edit]

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

This college publication offers only one source, and that's the college newspaper. In my opinion, it does not meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless independent, reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Nuttah68 16:57, 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, Coredesat 06:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Stegemann[edit]

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

Delete unsourced BLP about an author without any indication that anything he wrote was notable, not self-published, and oh, yes, by the way he's a business consultant. Do I hear the phone ringing? Carlossuarez46 03:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some reliable sources are provided. Google appears to never have heard of any of the lists of books, in any national version. Nuttah68 16:51, 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, Coredesat 06:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no mention of him on e.g. German Wikipedia. And even if these books do exist they were said to be written by Roman Schreiber. There is no ref that this is the pen name of the same guy.Obina 09:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I believe Roman Schreiber means "novel writer" auf Deutch. Found no indication of notability in resources beyond Google. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:54, 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. The notability arguments put forward by those proposing deletion are much stronger than those !voting "Keep". There also seems to be consensus that being in an iPhone advert does not warrant Notability, as well as the fact that injury seems to be an indication of non-Notability. Anthøny 10:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Sloan[edit]

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

A pretty, possibly talented but otherwise nonnotable young ballerina. the only claim of glory is a "Bartholin Award", mentioned nowhere else on web (possibly confused with the international Bartholin Seminar). `'Míkka 01:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would absolutely leave her in. I looked her up because I saw her on the iphone commercial and was intrigued. She may have a bigger future in store as a public figure. I certainly hope so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.53.235 (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Reliable sources exist--a couple of mentions in The New York Times, a more significant one in Dance Magazine from back in 2000. The consensus seems to be that a promising career has been curtailed by significant injuries. Chick Bowen 01:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Promicing career" does not mean notability. 2-3 mentions not enough. Achievents are unknown. Mukadderat 01:19, 25 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, Coredesat 06:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is NOT a crystal ball. "promising career curtailed by injuries" is still curtailed to what one presumes is something short of notability. --Richard 07:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Chick Bowen. Rob T Firefly 16:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mukadderat. I see no assertion of notability in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep She is doomed to be remembered as the iPhone ballarina, much as Clara Peller is for Where's the Beef. The article should be rewritten (It doesn't even mention her pre-accident stage career.) A "Bartholin Award" appears to be a scholarship given to five talented students each year at teh Bartholin International Dance Seminar.jonathon 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a reasonable argument but it's too early to know whether she will attain the same iconic status as Clara Peller. There's no reason we can't delete the article now and re-create it once it becomes clear that hers is not a fleeting notability. Besides, the Wikipedia guideline is document the event, not the person so if her major claim to fame is being the iPhone ballerina, then we should move the article to iPhone ballerina. --Richard 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I don't see the ad as very notable ("Where's the Beef" was a huge deal--this was just one ad of many in the iPhone campaign). If she's notable as a dancer, keep it. If not, delete it. Chick Bowen 05:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per mukadderat. Doctorfluffy 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chick Bowen & jonathon. She is also a model that has appeared in European magazines and is listed as a cast member in the movie Center Stage. --Evb-wiki 12:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentShe's not listed in the Wikipedia article Center Stage because it's a bit part. She's one of the ABA dancers. --Richard 14:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a bit about her dance career, with NYT citations. My "keep" above is still weak. Chick Bowen 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mahamagam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF, no references, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 01:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability, no sources, it's crystal balling, and it hasn't a chance of meeting inclusion standards... Deltopia 23:22, 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, Coredesat 06:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a future film with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. No prejudice against recreation once the film is made if notability can be established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrictramp (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments; if the film is produced and establishes notability, the article can be recreated. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ ""Can I Get an Amen?"". Retrieved October 31, 2007.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_25&oldid=1081101504"