Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 26

< October 25	October 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. GDonato (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Progression[edit]

This article's title and contents are probably original research, as the article has no sources and a Google search yields only Wikipedia mirrors and unrelated pages. Wikipedia already has an article on a similar topic: scrolling shooter. Alksub 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly no attempt to establish notability. Vegaswikian 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Appears to be OR regarding an already established topic with its own article. Doctorfluffy 07:53, 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 g1, repeatedly reposted (under different title) hoaxery. NawlinWiki 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamma Adventurers League[edit]

Sorry if I'm wrong, but this seems like pure nonsense. Lampman 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like nonsense to me, too. When I saw the article earlier, the original author had included a plea for it not to be deleted, which I moved to the talk page. The plea suggests that the article had been deleted in the past, though there's nothing in the deletion log. --stephenw32768^{<user page><talk>} 23:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. --Alksub 23:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move - Agreed on being incoherent and hard to read. Maybe move it to the original poster's namespace until it's improved. The original poster claims there are verifiable references availble, but until those are presented, we have to say it's not ready for the big leagues. --Emana 01:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read

i wrote some of the article and do not understand why you think it to be incoherent, it is not, we are just trying to add a page about real men who storys have just been brought to light. This does not benfit us we just want others to here about what they did. Lampland please research this is new info, thankyou.

Fine, then add some reliable sources. Lampman 08:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By its own admission, "Not a lot was known about the League or its members", so how can it be notable? (If an "Ancestor" of one of the founders finally "spoke out" in 2007 and the league was formed around 1880, that would make this person at least 150 years old.) Clarityfiend 01:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of http://www.getyourcontent.com/1/9813-0/The-Gamma-Adventures-Leag.aspx . According to the Terms of Service of that site, content from that site is permitted to be copied elsewhere, however various conditions apply, including: "Do not make any changes to the content of the article. (including but not limited to making extra links.)" and "You must receive permission from the author for any derivative works." This obviously doesn't work with the GFDL, so can't be used here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g1, repeatedly reposted hoax, will salt. NawlinWiki 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Makepeace Glaister-Walker[edit]

Relates to The Gamma Adventurers League, same reason. Lampman 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. --Alksub 23:52, 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. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington University Softball[edit]

Non-notable college Div III team. Speciate 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Non-notable college Div III team"--victor falk 07:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not that I am protesting the proposed deletion, but what, specifically, about this article fails notability? JFlav 18:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Div III is the lowest level, right? The article is on a university girl's softball team. Sufficient information on them already exists on the Washington U page. The boy's football page is tagged for notability. Speciate 21:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When it wins an NCAA championship, it might be notableon its own merit.jonathon 23:06, 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 delete. GDonato (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

X-Stroke the Eliminator[edit]

Character is extremely minor, featured in only half of one single comic book. His entry at List of Amalgam Comics characters is sufficient. Konczewski 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough to have own article. Doctorfluffy 01:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. One appearance doesn't show much importance. RobJ1981 17:09, 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 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Life of Illinois[edit]

Non-notable student organization, puff piece. Speciate 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedable per A7 in my opinion.--victor falk 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't do much of anything to establish notability. The one news link isn't the most reliable, and we don't really have any way to verify the other two references. Non-notable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization is less than two years old. A Diocese newsletter (The Catholic Post) and an electronic newsletter (Our Sunday Visitor) are hardly enough to establish notability in a field teaming with organizations. (If they can't get a mention on EWTN, why should they be mentioned here?) The article is almost a duplicate of the website.jonathon 23:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, while I am sure they are great kids doing "good works", the group is not notable as far as the article currently reads. Bearian'sBooties 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Savvier[edit]

Spam article for a company that lists no references outside of two company press releases. I told the article's author (who -given his witty username- seems to be an employee of the company in question) a few days back that the article needed some references to secondary sources but none have materialized. A Train^talk 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Corporate promo. Wouldn't it even qualify for speedy deletion? -- Emana 01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kinda borderline CSD, but it's probably better that it was brought here. Extremely promotional, little to no encyclopedic content. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Direct Response" companies are a dime a dozen.jonathon 23:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cites are to trade publications, not WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties 01:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete spam article looks to be the correct assessment. So G11 that ass. Burntsauce 16:21, 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 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft guild[edit]

This article is pretty much redundant and contains the same information as Clan (computer gaming). Nothing on that page is unique to WoW and the information there pretty much applies to every other MMORPG. --Hdt83 ^Chat 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Mindraker 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if there was any real content here I'd say merge & redirect to Clan (computer gaming), but honestly, there isn't. --Stormie 05:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clan (computer gaming). No content to merge, and redirects are cheap. -- Whpq 14:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to be article quality. Fangz the Wolf 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't even bother with a redirect, I can't see someone looking up WoW guilds in particular often enough to warrant it. -- Atama sama 18:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination, just redundant yet very specific Warcruft. Burntsauce 20:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Very short, has no relevant information. Needless. businessman332211 13:50, 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belegaer[edit]

Article is written almost entirely from an in-universe point of view, offering only two brief, speculatory, and unreferenced relations between the fiction of Tolkein and the real-life world. There are no references in the article and the entire thing is written as a textbook example of WP:NOT#PLOT. I'd recommend deletion unless someone can find another Wiki site to transwiki this to, however I note that this site doesn't appear to be a proper Wiki and has a copyright notice at the bottom, and this site already has a near-exact copy of this article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously nominated for deletion as part of a mass nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay of Andúnië. The discussion was withdrawn by the nominator with no prejudice. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor places in Arda. It's currently under AfD too, but it's already been pointed out that there are numerous sources to "satisfy WP:FICTION in spades". A list article is preferred over scores of small articles. Uthanc 07:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The great sea is one of the most important features in Tolkien's world. All the arguments and available references mentioned in the ongoing Tolkien location AfDs could be applied here. The oceanic feaures, such as the Gulf of Lune have been merged to their respective coastal region. They probably could have been merged here as well, and it seems a bit dubious to refer to an entire ocean that features so heavily in the universe of tolkien as a "minor place". IronGargoyle 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, possibly merge somewhere later per our above arguments. Uthanc 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per IronGargoyle above. jj137 (Talk) 16:05, 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 all--JForget 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Christmas[edit]

I know people don't like mass nominations, but these are of a sort and basically suffer the same ills from the same artist(s). They are a bunch of compilation albums, without sourcing to show any notability, all fail WP:MUSIC - the producer's bio was deleted as nn a while ago, but there are literally dozens of these sorts of mixes of common songs/instrumentals recorded by nn people and mass marketed - not notable WP:N. Yes, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and the Christmas songs are notable, but these particular recordings etc. of them aren't.

I am also nominating:

Baby Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby & Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby & Mommy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby Bach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby Beethoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby CD 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby CD 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby CD 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby CD 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby Magic 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby Magic 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Baby Mozart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Family CD 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Family CD 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Family CD 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lovely Sleepy Baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More Than This (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Music 4 Brains Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah's so Cold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sleepy Seaside Piano Part 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sleepy Seaside Piano Part 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sleepy Seaside Piano Part 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carlossuarez46 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all absurdly unjustified forest of articles. As some of these have apparently been reviewed, it might be possible to have one combination article on the concept or the series. Let's quickly complete the AfD and get rid of these. I don't say merge or redirect since they don't seem worth the linking. DGG (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All A wast of space noting secial!!! Yourname 01:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The producer may have been worth having a page for (but I presume not, trusting the judgment of those who deleted it since I haven't read it) but the individual CDs certainly aren't worth a thing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Badly written advertisements. Should the Raimond Lap article be speedy deleted, or go thru AfD? (Yikes! what is happening to me? I don't think anything should be deleted,much less speedy deleted.) As to why deleted the articles. The records (CDs/whatever) are indistinguishable from each other, and from the plethora of other compilations in the same genre. I don't see any way to salvage them. jonathon 00:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I too hate mass nominations, but oh well, this is the rare exception. Burntsauce 16:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per above, promo. -R. S. Shaw 19:50, 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 Withdrawn by Nominator, defaulting to keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

I'm ending the too-long-lasting discussion once and for all. This discussion has been active for far too long. Once this discussion is over, everything that's not part of the final results, should be reverted. Agreed? TheBlazikenMaster 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is merge to the list like it's supposed to. TheBlazikenMaster 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most notable and reconizable Pokemon characters, more than notable enough for its own article (hell, it was even a FA on the front page). TJ Spyke 22:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think TheBlazikenMaster is nominating the whole list of Pokemon. If so, I don't think that discussion belongs in AFD. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm clearly nominationg one article. TheBlazikenMaster 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the actual discussion part. I think this should be Snowball Closed because it doesn't meet the standards for AFD and is not what AFD is for.Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was just trying to improve this per the suggestions left by AManInBlack. I do not understand the rationale behind the nomination but obviously, having tried to improve it, would prefer the article to be kept for further improvement. btw I hadn't read the thing about threading posts and was trying to keep a track there: the indented dones are me, sorry.--Barnyard animals 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw TTN is right, so I'm withdrawing it. TheBlazikenMaster 22:56, 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. GDonato (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman Intermediate School[edit]

Middle school indistinguishable from thousands of others. No assertion of notability. Valrith 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, wp:notaschooldirectory. Speedable per A7--victor falk 07:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious redirect to the Watson Chapel School District page per WP:REDIRECT. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 20:36, 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. Content can be recovered from history and merged, if it is deemed appropriate. GDonato (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigeridoo[edit]

Non-notable fictional play with very little content other than song lyrics whose inclusion must be dubious on copyright grounds. The remaining content is already in We Can Be Heroes: Finding The Australian of the Year Mattinbgn\^talk 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to We Can Be Heroes: Finding The Australian of the Year. There are some articles referencing this but not outside the context of the series. [1] Capitalistroadster 01:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability. Twenty Years 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to We Can Be Heroes: Finding The Australian of the Year as non-notable. •97198 talk 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 04:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to We Can Be Heroes: Finding The Australian of the Year. No reason for deletion of content and it is well developed - it just doesn't warrant a separate article. Auroranorth (sign) 10:30, 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 Withdrawn by Nominator defaulting to keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 02:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Stern[edit]

Non-Notability. Article created day he died from the obituary. His Jewelry company does not have an article (that I could find), and that is what he is supposedly notable for. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although his company does not have article, it is apparently a well-known high-end jewelery multinational [2]. Its omission to date appears to be more a case of neglect rather than a case of insignificance or lack of notability. Kiwipat 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Article needs improving, expansion, and sources. Mindraker 01:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very very keepable: Ah go on, give it a keep now. --86.40.101.116 03:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, international jeweler to A-listers is definitely notable. Should have articles on Stern and his company. 2003 WSJ profile --Dhartung | Talk 03:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep/Withdraw - I guess I don't know much about notability eh. I assumed it was made out of his death. Please close this and keep it, sorry about the misunderstandingTrevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a rewrite. (Most of Brazil's gem trade is a result of his work.)jonathon 00:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Broman[edit]

Non-notable person. No claim of notability, no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. The "award" isn't enough. JJL 02:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google News Archive shows a couple of Oz profiles but behind paywalls. If other sources could be found, just possible. Otherwise, NN author/website owner. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If 6+ months of the article existence it can't get beyond two lines, she can't be notable.(What year did she win that award in anyway? 2121 CE ?)jonathon 00:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no assertion of notability, no cites, per WP:BLP. Bearian'sBooties 01:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Note that the article, to this point, has not been tagged as needing references. I've now marked it with {{unref}}. The article does make an assertion of notability as being voted Home and Gardens DIY Mum of the Year, as well as being an author. A search through Google News indicates that she has received coverage from multiple indpendent reliable sources though the articles now have slipped behind pay walls. See this Gnews search. As such, it appears that sources do exist (within a physical library) to find provide sources, establish notability and meet verifiability requirements. -- Whpq 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So she won an award. Millions of people win awards, but where are the multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources about this person? Oh, there aren't any? Burntsauce 20:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there may actually be reliable sources. Did you check the Gneews results I posted above? -- Whpq 20:59, 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 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Hayden[edit]

Delete nn musician, fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. she's unsigned, no releases under a label. To quote the article "Carrie currently holds a job in a busy Liverpool City Center shop to fund her path to "international superstardom". Her musical talent remains unsigned to any record label at present but with Carrie's prospects, a signing is thought likely among fans. Carrie continues to hold occasional shows at bars in the Liverpool area" which sums up her claim to fame - I speedied it before as A7, now its back and I'll let the community decide because it'll no doubt keep coming back until the community does. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, I think this would fall under speedy delete A7 as I don't see any assertion of notability at all. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 21:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur on speedy. JJL 03:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this article has already been deleted recently and I advice the author about the copyright violation into this article, so I think it meets CSD A7, G11 and G12. Martial BACQUET 07:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find articles less worthy of being on Wikipedia than this - Carrie is one of the most popular unsigned acts in Merseyside, and Merseyside has A LOT of unsigned acts. One of these less-notable articles is Alexis Blue - Please explain what makes these lads more notable than Carrianne... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlen (talk • contribs) 09:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please see this info about other articles and your comment above. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 13:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aside from the fact that "She's as good as this other artist" means nothing regarding her own notability, the Alexis Blue article has references, whereas this one does not. Frog47 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on this woman may eventually be warranted, but not until she meets the notability guidelines for musicians. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Notability Guidelines for Musicians: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - This is explained in the article, Miss Hayden is the "most prominent representative" of slow/acoustic music and the ONLY popular local musician to perform any style other than Rock, Pop or Indie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlen (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The policy also says, "the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability." This article does not reliably document any of its claims in such a way as to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party documentation. Minimal content. A self-released CD or two (if that is what those images were of) does not make for a notable band. After she has toured Japan, North America, or Australia, and has a regular gig as a musician, she can have an article here. jonathon 00:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. Also note that the author of the article User:Adlen is also working to promote the subject online (see this diff), so also huge conflict of interest problem, as well as unresolved copyright issues with the text of the article. -- Whpq 14:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK she has done a N.America tour but I don't have full details, shall schedule a meeting with her within the week to find contend based on tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please note that regardless of what she says, the information will not help the article unless it is reliably sourced through second-hand, reputable sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I think this would fail under any sort of BLP critera & I don't see any assertion of notability. Also I dislike the repitition of the MySpace. This is an encyclopedia after all! Rudget _{Contributions} 16:40, 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 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (2010 movie)[edit]

While the title says "2010" movie, the article claims the film will be released in 2008...which just shows there is very little known about the project. It is uncast and has merely been anounced. When something more concrete has happened the article can return. For now, it is simply crystal ballery. IrishGuy ^talk 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Development of the film can be covered on the novel page; at this page little more has happened than the sale of rights. The attachment of a director and writer is normal at this stage but guarantees nothing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. A1octopus 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball. Mindraker 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Crystal. JJL 03:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't come close to meeting WP:MOVIE if they haven't cast it yet and there's no sources suggesting sustained and/or wide-spread interest. Accounting4Taste 03:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons above. Also, it has not yet been confirmed as to whether there'll even be a movie. It's still in talks and has only been optioned so far, according to http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight_movie.html. PeRiDoTs13 03:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB says it is "pre-production".All that means is that somebody wants to produce it, if a several million other things happen. jonathon 00:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 07:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally WP:BALLS. Burntsauce 16:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free console guide[edit]

Looks a bit like spam...? KMS 21:21, 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. The arguments to delete per WP:RS and WP:N are based in policy. GDonato (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne van Bommel[edit]

This person is notable for being a candidate for an office. The article offers no sources, and my googling turned up only minimal sources; I am not convinced that she meets the notability criteria. Will she still be notable if she loses? In my opinion, no. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No sources? Is the most significant thing this person did was being a candidate for office? That fails notability, IMHO. Winning a significant political race (senate, house, president) might make you notable, but not running for office (unless she was like 'the first woman to run for political office' or something like that). My vote: Seriously improve or Delete Mindraker 01:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources. jonathon 00:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she is notable a person in Canadian / Ontario politics. President of two riding associations, Chief of Staff to a sitting Minister and candidate for one of the two major parties in Canada. Even if she didn't win an election she is still an influential person in Canadian politics. 72.140.17.92 05:04, 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 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infosim[edit]

Not notable -- see Talk:Infosim for details. A. B. ^(talk) 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin -- if this article is deleted, please tag Image:Infosim.gif‎ for deletion. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third party references. jonathon 00:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company. Doctorfluffy 05:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 17:40, 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. GDonato (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Brinton[edit]

Yet another parliamentary candidate. The closeness of the result and reselection are not notable features in and of themselves. There are thousands of such candidates in elections around the globe. Timrollpickering 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Whilst the candidacy stuff is at the top of the article and is insufficient, the other information - positions, honorary awards, etc - suggests that there are other reasons she can be confirmed as notable. --AlisonW 23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The non-political stuff (that isn't in the current version of the article) looks like it might be notable. OTOH, they have had almost a year to clean it up. jonathon 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Not much, but notable.Tiptopper 00:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caligare[edit]

Non-notable article created by User:Caligare and previously deleted twice. See Talk:Caligare for notability comments. A. B. ^(talk) 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources show up. The comments on the talk page about no Google News hits are pretty convincing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this article is deleted, the redirect, Caligare Flow Inspector, also needs to be deleted. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Image:Caligare.gif should be tagged for deletion if this article is deleted. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until reliable sources show up. NHRHS2010 talk 20:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree about the convincing nature of the "no Google News hits" argument. No secondary sources = fails notability criteria for companies. JFlav 18:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Doesn't appear to have any notability. Ghits are mostly download sites or WP mirrors. Since this has been recreated twice by the SPA for advertising, it will probably come back otherwise. Horrorshowj 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- there are more articles about other companies that are somewhat like this listed at Talk:List of network management systems#Non-notable entries. Some are obvious deletion candidates, others less clearly so. Other editors' help in assessing which to keep and which to delete would be appreciated. --A. B. ^(talk) 19:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. —A. B. ^(talk) 17:41, 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 no consensus. Arguments for both keep and delete are present and fairly equal. GDonato (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hill[edit]

This page is primarily being nominated because it appears to be of a nonnotable subject. There are hundreds of press secretaries on the 1.5 sq miles of Capitol Hill. Also, and this is perhaps conjecture, but this subject has been the focus of some investigations by the media as to whether or not it is autobiographical. See here and here. I am simply trying to begin some debate on this topic and am interested on what the Wikipedia community has to say. Daysleeper47 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom, as the person is simply not notable. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 19:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I would agree that being a press secretary in and of itself means NOTHING with regards to notability. However, there are some tenuous claims to notability, per the Wikipedia page blanking scandal, which are cited in the article. I can see where this might be used to establish notability; heck, the Seigenthalar controversy made some Wikipedia users notable enough to have an article for themselves. Its not MUCH, but it is SOMETHING. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Basically a content fork of David Davis (Tennessee politician), which is the only place this information belongs (and info on the incident has been added and removed from that article in the past). Not a significant event, not a claim to notability for the staffer. Just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't mean we cover it.--Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. Speciate 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep People who try to edit WP in the way described, are caught at it, and are then the subject of multiple newspaper articles for that, are notable. It becomes politics, not merely news. Better here than in the article on the Senator, as there is no proof the Senator was himself involved. But conceivably merge as Speciate suggests just above. DGG (talk) 00:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, albeit a very weak motion to do so. Burntsauce 16:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. I don't think this is notable enough. Doctorfluffy 05:16, 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 no consensus. There was some support for a merger to a list; if someone wants to do that, see Help:Merging and moving pages for instructions. --bainer (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nukesaku[edit]

Non-notable characters from a manga series -- here are some of them that I tagged as part of this AfD but there are dozens more -- they should be part of a list, but do not deserve to each their own page.

Enya Geil (links)
Steely Dan (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Arabia Fats (links)
Mannish Boy (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Cameo (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Midler (links)
N'Dour (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Anubis (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Mariah (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Daniel J. D'Arby (links)
Pet Shop (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Terence Trent D'Arby (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Kenny G (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Vanilla Ice (JoJo's Bizarre Adventure) (links)
Nukesaku (links)

Llajwa 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge, possibly speedy close this since the nominator states they should be merged rather than deleted. Merging can (and almost always should) be done without an AfD vote. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the proposal is to merge the individual character articless into a character list for JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, then that should be handled with the merge templates, rather than an AfD. However, it's hard to tell if this is the case, from the ambiguous wording of the proposal. —Quasirandom 22:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. No opinion on the others since the nominator's intent is unclear and I haven't visited the unlinked pages. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator into List of characters from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, along with a second grumble at the nominator for not using the merge process for this instead of the delete process. —Quasirandom 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. 300 ghits, none of them reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 21:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kissing moon[edit]

Deltion nomination Contested prod. This is a dictionary definition and, per WP:DICDEF, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Another Wikimedia site exists for articles like this, and that is Wiktionary. This reasoning was explained in the original prod. The prod was removed, and a single sentance was added indicating that Stephen King has used the term. OK. Even if true, that doesn't make this any more of an appropriate encyclopedia article. Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless proper, non-fiction sources can be found that would allow expansion of the article. That said, if it can be properly sourced, I wouldn't particularly object to having this article, even if it never got quite as detailed as Harvest moon or Hunter's moon. The problem is that I haven't been able to find anything that would even confirm that the term is used as described in the article at all (and that's unexpected, since usually stuff like this is easily found online even if it's not in common use). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reliable source I've found is a critical review of Stephen King which claims that it's a "lunar designation", but since no astronomy sources (scientific or popular) mention it, I suspect it's an idiosyncratic usage by King himself. Fails WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nonstandard usage at best. Really, deleting this is a tribute to King's creativity, yes? CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe transwiki to wictionary.(It is used in the bridal industry, with a completely different meaning.) jonathon 01:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 07:16, 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 keep. Carioca 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernabé Ballester[edit]

No assertion of notability - fails Wp:bio. Llajwa 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable sports player. NHRHS2010 talk 20:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't say I know much about football, but as per a quick Google search, he's played for several professional teams/leagues including Hibernian FC (according to this article [3]) and captained the B team of Valencia CF, [4] which would seem to be be enough for him to pass the notability requirements for athletes on WP:BIO. DanielEng 07:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article about Hibernian says he went there to have a trial, it doesn't say he signed for them or played a match for them...... ChrisTheDude 09:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further investigation reveals that Hibs did not sign him up after his trial. Assuming this is up to date, he has yet to play a match for his current club in Belgium. So his only potential claim to notability is having played for Valencia and Real Madrid's reserves. Given that these reserve teams play in the same league system as the first teams, I'm not sure how the notability guidelines work........ ChrisTheDude 09:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs sources. needs a rewrite. Is a notable Spanish player going by http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/h/hibernian/5173506.stm amongst other articles.jonathon 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays for a professional team. Also, can someone who speaks Dutch translate this page please: [5]. GiantSnowman 12:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in a fully professional league (20 mins for Mouscron), so he narrowly meets the notability criteria. I've added an infobox and some additional info to the article. Jogurney 15:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played 20 minutes for R.E. Mouscron first team against R. Charleroi S.C. on October 5 2007. Player qualifies for notability in WikiProject Football. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in a fully professional league (WP:BIO). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:29, 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 The very premise of this article is based on original research in the respect that it is trying to quantitatively compare the opinions of disparate sources as to what constitutes the "greatest ever" television series. Some of these entries are being touted as "greatest ever" based on time aired, some on determination in various magazines. At this point there isn't even anything worth merging or refactoring in this article but if I had to give any recommendation it would be better to do fresh lists that were source specific (i.e. Best Television shows according to "Reliable Source X") and tie them together with a master list.--Isotope23 ^talk 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Television series considered the greatest ever[edit]

This is the second time this article has been proposed, yet having watched the page since the previous nomination was closed on 14 June 2007, it appears to have progressed no further than being a heated debate between Plasma Twa 2 and AKR619 which at one point led to it being protected. To me, it appears that the rules for inclusion have been decided by two individuals and a brief look at the edit history[6] reveals nothing but editor's point of view, which violates any number of policies but specifically WP:NPOV. The recent deletion of Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever has concreted my suspicion that this article is probably not going to progress beyond being a magnet for POV. Bob talk 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The problem with the article as it stands, as I read it, is not POV but original research. The article doesn't make arguments about different shows' relative excellence, but compiles various verifiable (if not always well-sourced) measures of relative success. But it's a notable topic with interesting, relatively NPOV information. Llajwa 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it could potentially be interesting, but as I see it, most of the inclusions appear to suggest that longevity is a measure of 'greatness', which, as you say, is original research. Bob talk 18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title of the list seems to be narrow enough to define the list per WP:LIST guidelines. HOWEVER, several entries need to be removed since they CLEARLY do not meet the title. Being "considered the greatest ever" requires that some reliable publication has named you such. There are some shows that qualify, however this list contains MANY that clearly DO NOT meet this criteria. However, this is a cleanup issue, and not a delete issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is nothing more than a neutral point of view article, there are too many opintions on this for this to be a decent article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous AfD discussion hasn't been posted. I'm sure that I wrote something brilliant in support of or in opposition to the article, but I don't recall what it was. Mandsford 21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:UNENC and WP:NPOV. These programmes have nothing in common other than that completely unrelated organisations across the world have at various points in the last few decades voted them at some point the best. That's an indiscriminate collection of information. A1octopus 22:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection of information, directory of loosely associated topics, no possible objective criteria for inclusion. Otto4711 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, a correction. For my part, at least, I only agreed to having some of the longest running shows on the article to avoid having another revert war with AKR. I really don't care what shows get on the article, as long as they were actually voted the greatest. I don't like them being on, and yeah, they probably should be deleted. Like Jayron said, it's not a delete issue, but a cleanup issue. The article does need alot of work, but I don't see how that means it should get deleted. It has been alot worse in terms of POV, anyway. --Plasma Twa 2 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Yes, the opinions can be sourced to critics, polls, etc, but who decides which sources are significant enough to count? Two examples from the list; TIME magazine's "best television show of the 20th Century" is obviously significant, but Channel 9's 50 Years/50 Shows special in Australia is nowhere near as significant. Where do we draw the line at what sources to rely on, and which to discount? Just because a source passes WP:RS doesn't mean their opinions should be used to create a list like this. Masaruemoto 23:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well referenced and not original research. People can judge the merits of each source for themselves as they read it. I never agreed with Billboard Top 100, since it seemed to be a "pay to play" scheme, but it was the industry standard before Nielsen SoundScan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the criteria can be specified more exactly--which is an editing question only. Might be possible to find a better wording for the title of the article.DGG (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the problem is exactly that - an individual editor deciding what the inclusion criteria should or should not be is original research. Bob talk 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose an editor calling an article "top ten" or "top 100" is arbitrary too, but we use it for most lists. If the Phoenicians had their way it would a "top 12" and "top 144". They already got their way with dividing the day, and dividing the degrees in a circle based on 12. Damn them to Hell. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it survived an earlier nomination as keep just a few months ago and because it is a sourced article as well and satisfies List by being coherently organized. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Consensus can change. Using the past AFD isn't a real reason to keep things. The same goes for "organized lists". Being organized falls under an I like it argument in my view. This user has posted similar comments in other articles that are in their 2nd nomination, and has been told of consensus can change (but just ignores it). RobJ1981 21:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of this thread is on the talk page.--chaser - t 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and move information to respective articles Though the article contain no original research or do not violate any policies, I don't see the reason for us to keep the article simply because the information in this article can be expressed in the Wikipedia articles of the television shows. For example, the line "The Simpsons was voted the best television show of the 20th Century by TIME magazine and has won more Emmys than any other animated television show" can be placed in The Simpsons itself. Or for better navigation. you can create a template showing all greatest shows. I just don't think an article is even needed. Chris! _ct 04:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, such subjective criteria are a necessary evil to place a work in its historical/social context. That is not necessary for this article, and an encyclopedia should not concern itself with wholly subjective fields. --JohnEMcClure 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an encyclopedia should aim at doing more than that. it's not just a place for people to look up particualr series and fit about about them. it should indicate what series have been considered most important, and as long as its sourcrced properly, and represents the most imprtant evaluations, the material is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes "the most important evaluations" and by whose standards can that determination be made in a POV-neutral manner? Otto4711 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. —--Quiddity 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article should be improved through regular editing per WP:AFD, deleting this content does not make wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Benjiboi 01:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Refactor and rename the "best ever" thing is inherently POV, and the polls are open to rigging, but most of these shows serve as an archetype for a particular genre, so to have a list of shows identified as archetypes, with sources, would remedy the POV issue. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what definition of "archetype" do we use and what non-POV standard do we use to decide that a source's calling a show "archetypal" is sufficient to warrant inclusion and how is that any different from calling it "the best ever"? Otto4711 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'The greatest ever' relates to a notable source claiming such a thing, not a Wikipedia editor's opinion. Of course, the selection of such sources and the way they are presented should be done in the neutral-point-of-view way. In the same way that we have Films considered the greatest ever, we should have Television series considered the greatest ever, Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever, Songs considered the greatest ever, Albums considered the greatest ever, People considered the greatest ever, etc. I am sure there are plenty of sources to back up all such articles. I think the encyclopedia would benefit from such articles. --Yury Petrachenko 08:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deciding which sources are themselves notable enough to claim something is "the greatest ever" automatically renders the article biased towards certain countries, publications or members of society. Who gives an editor the right to decide which publications or surveys are notable enough? This is exactly the reason this article was nominated for deletion, because since the last debate there has been nothing but dispute over what constitutes the contentious term "greatness". Bob talk 09:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally we had an Actors and Actresses Considered the Greatest Ever page, but it was soon deleted because people weren't fans of the actors listed, or they didn't like the fact they're favourite actors weren't on the list. --AKR619 05:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe, or perhaps it was because the discussion gained a consensus that it had the same problems as this article? Bob talk 14:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was what AKR said. There was a consensus on the talk page, yeah, but in the actual discussion nearly everybody said something about an actor that wasn't/was on the list. Kind of irritating. But that article had more problems then this one. That one was all rewards and box office success. Anyway, Bob. Please read WP:WIGAD. It seems your complaint is about nothing ever happening to this article, which in no way is grounds for deletion. And it has already been established that greatest ever lists are encyclopedia-worthy (See films considered the greatest ever. If it survived two afds with large support then it clearly belongs on wikipedia). And, according to WP:WIGAD; "As long as the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, the article should never, ever, ever be deleted." --Plasma Twa 2 18:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that isn't actually a policy. Bob talk 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was. I just told you to read it, since it's there to make Wikipedia a better place. --Plasma Twa 2 23:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. How about this: Flavors of ice cream considered the greatest ever. Sound like a good idea? Didn't think so. Burntsauce 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any article/list/section about film/tv/literary criticism will have to make choices about what critics are notable enough to include. Moreover, this variety "original research" is inherent in the writing of just about every article in any encyclopedia--it's juts a problem who the most reliable sources are in a field. The ice cream example is a ridiculous straw man: television criticism is an important field, unlike ice cream criticism. Calliopejen1 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, coherent as a topic. Everyking 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all subjective lists -Doc^g 10:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. The principle meaning of the list does not allow for this problem to ever be corrected. Jay32183 20:20, 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 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mountain Firework Company[edit]

Band with one self-released album; fails WP:MUSIC. It is claimed that their music has been used in a TV program, but apparently this has not lead to significant secondary coverage. PROD was contested in January. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google gives 500+ hits for the band name, but Amazon's listing for the album is a private ad - not even the record company is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvestrand (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very non notable! Paste 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band lacks meaningful sources that verify their importance. The group appears non notable. --Stormbay 23:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deleteno third party sourcesjonathon 01:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- NN Yourname 02:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable band which fails WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy 06:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Burntsauce 16:25, 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/no consensus. There is certainly not a consensus present to delete though. GDonato (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of anarchist musicians[edit]

Unreferenced, indiscriminate list. Categories work much better than lists like this and List of anarchist poets. Only bands that have been explicitly identified as anarchists should be included here and as there are no sources we should not have such a list. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Delete. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider categorizing. Majoreditor 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'd rather fix the problems with the article instead of just deleting it, only to have it rewritten later. Sources shouldn't be hard to find for most of the listed. Murderbike 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the article has major problems at the moment but only needs to be fixed up. With defined inclusion criteria, sourcing and some additional material from anarchism and the arts this could eventually become a good list. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 13:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What's with the systematic attack on anarchist articles? Nothing wrong with this article that couldn't be fixed.--Apples99 18:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apples99 (talk • contribs)
Keep: The article needs work, but deleting it won't get it done. Since there are many anarchist musicians who are not punks, combining the article is a not a solution either. SmashTheState 18:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per SwitChar. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate unsourced list. No inclusion criteria, This will quickly grown out of control. Just because a band is politcal dose not equal anarchist. Article is doomed to POV and orignal research. 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Ridernyc 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, an article/list is only doomed to OR if editors don't do their "job" and find sources and citations. Your argument is a strawman that could be used for ANY article. Nobody has claimed that "politcal" equals "anarchist". Murderbike 21:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the keep voters: Please tell me how this list is in any way better than a category. It does not organise things by date or sub-genre. The title is incorrect as this is a list of bands and not musicians. It is totally unreferenced and sourcing it would be something of a pointless duplication of putting the references into the articles. I am tempted to speedy it based on these points and regret placing it on AfD - I hope these points will be taken into consideration by the closer rather than counting votes. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think Jello Biafra, John Cage, Daniel Carter, Robert Eggplant, Andrew Eldritch, Emcee Lynx, Tom Frampton, and many others would be surprised to find out that they were bands, and not musicians. If you want it organized by date or sub-genre, why don't you do that? Murderbike 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You managed to find a couple of examples - well done, that accounts for a tenth of those listed there. I don't think the list will ever serve a decent purpose hence me not wanting to try and improve it - it's a pointless list that is redundant with the use of categories. violet/riga (t) 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's because i stopped at "F". The point was made that your generalization was wrong. And anyway, what makes people in a band not musicians anyway? Murderbike 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, shall we look at A then? A//Political, A Silver Mt. Zion, Against All Authority, Against Me!, Amebix, Antischism, Antisect, The APF Brigade, The Apostles, Atari Teenage Riot, Aus-Rotten, Autumn Poison. That's every A there and how many of them are musicians? None, they are all bands and are thus not musicians. Pedantry is rather unproductive in such circumstances. violet/riga (t) 18:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to talk about pedantry? YOU were the one who claimed that the title makes it a list of "musicians", not "bands", but still haven't explained how it is that bands aren't musicians. Murderbike 18:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And anyway, if the title of the article is at issue, then the solution if to move the article, not delete it. Murderbike 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A musician is an individual and therefore this should be a list of people, not groups. That is just one of the reasons that this list is poor, and the fact that this should be a category is the primary reason for deletion. violet/riga (t) 19:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why we have categories. I question how much of these bands really are anarchist musicians. Per WP:BLP, a musician should only be classified under this if they explicitly identify as one or if there are reliable sources saying so. Spellcast 10:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Afd is not cleanup; uncited articles should be treated with Template:unreferenced, not a deletion nomination.Skomorokh ^incite 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source. I have no problem with the existence of a list with this title, but each musician on it needs a source verifying that he, she, they, or it is in fact an anarchist musician. If they can't be sourced, the delete. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; hard to maintain; sources are hard to find; not sure if intersection is notable enough. Jack^(Lumber) 00:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for what it's worth, I found eight sources in 25 casual minutes while I was doing other things. Claiming that sources are hard to find is a pretty poor reason to delete an article I think. A) It's totally subjective as to what constitutes "hard to find", and B) Everything's "hard" to source, but it's got to be done, and is C) way more productive than deleting articles/lists. Murderbike 06:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list has been nominated for deletion with the same excuse that was used to try to delete the Category: Fictional anarchists. The argument I made then was that the category in question had indeed been abused by the inclusion of non-anarchists and a lack of proper citation. However, the category and associated list still served a meaningful source of information, and source citations were indeed available for various articles. This same argument is even stronger in relation to this list, as we are now operating in the realm of non-fiction. This is not a matter of literary significance, but rather of political allegiances, and could serve an academic, as well as entertainment, purpose for others. This list may be improved vastly with a layout according to time period, or musical genre; it may be improved by the swift, calculated removal of any individual or, where appropriate, bands (insofar as a band is a collection of musicians, and this is a list of musicians, which allows for the inclusion of the plural, justifying the inclusion of bands to begin with) who do not self-identify as anarchists. This very strict criteria has been utilized for the category and list of fictional anarchists in the months since its failed deletion nomination, and the article has been significantly improved, and continues to be updated on a regular basis to further improve its quality. There is no reason to assume this list cannot be improved in a similar fashion. I would also like to note that in recent weeks I have begun to do the same for the List of anarchist poets and hope to have all poets lacking a citation removed within a matter of months. Do remember: patience is an important wikipedian virtue.--Cast 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having bands included in a list of musicians is like having the Labour Party included in a list of British Prime Ministers, or "salad" in a list of vegetables. The bands are not musicians. It would be easy to fix by renaming the article. As for my "excuse" (not a word I'd use) for deletion I would say it goes into the nature of lists on Wikipedia versus categories, and as this stands there is simply no reason to have this article when a category system works better. Maybe it could be turned into an chronological or otherwise non-alphabetical list, but it isn't right now and categories work much much better for information in this form. violet/riga (t) 17:11, 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. GDonato (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhu Mirandal[edit]

Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Weak assertion of notability, however is currently not much more than gossip. — Music Maker 5376 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, MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per independent coverage, expand, talk about movie more, stars' weight less.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-- crystal ball violation, no? Llajwa 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete upcoming movie? Write about it after a theatrical release.jonathon 01:20, 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 speedy per A7 - the "hottest in the country" phrase is not a claim of notability for this person. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Jeeka[edit]

Contested prod so off we go through the motions... Prod nomination is "Apparently non-notable - never played at any kind of level other than school. Not speedying due to that "Hottest in the country" claim.", don't see anything further to add to that. — iridescent 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously. Addhoc 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur; really nothing to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwern (talk • contribs) 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unsourced, no news stories on Google News, no references to offline coverage.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe speedy per A7. When an article makes a patently rediculous claim to notability like "John is the coolest kid EVER" that should not be taken seriously(see WP:BALLS. I see nothing here that amounts to a real assertion of notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable biography, article is also sloppy. NHRHS2010 talk 20:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Parker[edit]

Local politician without substantiated claims to notability. Fails WP:BIO. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In checking on sources for this article, I found none of any consequence. There is a same named actor that does have notability. This subject does not appear to be notable. --Stormbay 18:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google News Australia hits, unless someone wants to make the case that none of those articles rise to the WP:BIO standard.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, could you at least pick one or two of them which in your opinion have enough in-depth coverage for writing a biography? Google hits alone don't say much - I looked at some of the results, they seem to confirm that he's a local politician, but these usually wouldn't be considered notable. --B. Wolterding 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per BIO, "Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources." The first hit has coverage like "Jamie Parker, the candidate for the seat of Port Jackson, is unusual for the Greens. He's a salesman, not a tree hugger or a North Coast save-the-whale hippie....For Jamie Parker, it will be another four years in the wilderness. But, with more money behind him, the next election may be a different story." Further down, there's an abstract from The Daily Telegraph stating: "Leichhardt Council, notorious for its Machiavellian politics, is at it again. Actually I think it's worse than Rats in the Ranks, said Greens councillor Jamie Parker, who last week prematurely was claiming the mayoralty. Today the former deputy mayor is licking his wounds -- a victim of a controversial deal between Labor, the Liberals and two Independents to ensure the Greens are locked out of power." He's got mentions in multiple papers over at least 5 years, 1999-2004. I don't know him from a hole in the ground, but this seems like notability to me.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure. The first hit, which is perhaps the most in-depth one, is a transcript of a maybe 5 minute interview. Not too much for standards in politics (I don't know exactly about Australia though). Once he wins these elections, things may be different. Many other of the hits are very short mentionings, and if you browse further down the list, they don't even relate to him at all. --B. Wolterding 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Candidates for state/federal election are not inherently notable. He's active in his party but any claim to national notability is fairly marginal. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable--the student political role is not sufficiently important, the position of a small municipal council is not either, and just the same about the election failures. If he ever succeeds, then there can be an article. DGG (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls short of notability standards at the moment. If he is successful in Port Jackson, he would then have a claim to an article. He would be worth a mention in an article about the election in Port Jackson. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a former deputy mayor, he meets "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" under WP:BIO. Assize 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deputy mayors (or even mayors) don't cut it - needs to be state or federal MP to achieve notability through office. Orderinchaos 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where in WP:BIO does it say that? Elected politicans at State and Federal levels are automatically notable for some arcane reason. The next rider to WP:BIO is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". You wouldn't need this rider if it didn't intend to pick up politicans outside the federal and state spheres. If he is not a major politcal figure, why does he pop up on TV and in newspapers so often? One doesn't have to be an elected politician to change things politically thank goodness. Assize 02:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG sums up my thoughts succinctly. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO and yet more Greenscruft (those of us who watch political articles in Australia are well aware of the vast number of non-notable articles on Greens candidates). Orderinchaos 13:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Per Above. Twenty Years 10:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deb 12:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless some of the UN stuff is referenced. Tiptopper 00:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etobicoke Collegiate Institute[edit]

Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. Delete J 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as North American high schools are presumed notable, by precedent here at AfD, and by dicta of Jimbo Wales: Jimbo Wales on high school articles. This one seems big enough to be in per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian'sBooties 20:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC) P.S.. Also has many notable alumni. Needs cites. Bearian'sBooties 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) P.P.S. has lots of provincial champs, for notability. Bearian'sBooties 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply I take no stand on this issue, except to note that the above arguement is doubly faulty: First of all, there is no statement that all High Schools are presumed notable. High Schools face the same burdens of proof as to their notability as do ANY OTHER single subject at Wikipedia. Secondly, the Jimbo quote provided (and it should be noted that Jimbo's one-off statements never trump consensus. Jimbo is very important, but his mailing list quotes are not Holy Scripture), does NOT give carte-blanche to create an article on every high school in existence. Indeed, it argues directly AGAINST that. The context for this quote from Jimbo is simply that each article is to be adjudged OF ITS OWN MERIT, not in relation to other articles. All he is saying is that PROPERLY WRITTEN AND REFERENCED articles about high schools should not be deleted EVEN IF crappy articles about high schools SHOULD BE deleted. It is a statement of the oft-cited arguement WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which again, means that you cannot argue the merits of an article in relation to other articles, ONLY in relation to established and accepted guidelines like WP:N. This article does not seem to meet the threshold of WP:N YET, and I would like to see some references provided before I make a decision on how I feel about it, however the above non-arguement does not seem a valid keep defense. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES which is merely precedent and because this one would pass WP:SCHOOLS if it had become a notability guideline, which it did not. Major urban high school age 75+ with numerous notable alumni and athletic championships. Tag for sources, move on. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regardless of one's view on the notability of all high schools in general. The list of distinguished alumni is quite sufficient. The purpose of schools is to produce them, and it is therefore relevant to notability, and not just a matter of inheritance. DGG (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Flaws are fixable. Yes, there needs to be a nudge into action, but I don't think that needs to be all the way to deletion. Also see WP:OUTCOMES. —C.Fred (talk) 04:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be a hole-in-the-wall school, but it is notable to lots of kids and alumni somewhere in Smallville. The article needs cleanup and work, though. Mindraker 10:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems their is no good reason for this delete.--Zingostar 19:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep needs better sources. 75+ year old high school counts for something towards notability. (Heck, my high school didn't even last ten years. Come to think of it, none of the schools or colleges I attended even exist anymore.)jonathon 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article makes strong claim of notability, above and beyond the consensus on notability for such schools documented at WP:OUTCOMES. Alansohn 05:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Article should be improved through regular editing per WP:AFD; hard to believe there aren't plenty of articles and references to school's activities, accomplishments and alumni. Benjiboi 02:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There does not appear to be a valid reason presented for deletion. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability requirement. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Please keep, it is doing no harm. No reason to delete. user:joeyman365 —Preceding comment was added at 00:12, 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 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Ashraf[edit]

Article provides no references, and may be a hoax. Google has no references to such an individual, so far as I can determine. Prod tag was removed without comment by an anonymous user. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q=%22Ayman+Ashraf%22+Hatiya - no google hits apart from mirror sites.
Delete unless reliability confirmed. Addhoc 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, it seems hoax.--NAHID 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some googling, and after eliminating mirrors and translating some pages, I suspect this is a vanity/hoax article by a forumer. I don't think Bangladesh even has any royalty any more... --Gwern (contribs) 18:47 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Strong delete - Obvious, complete hoax which should have been speedied rather than going through this AfD. --Ragib 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong or speedy delete -- you can't be a king of a subdistrict in Bangladesh. Hoax. Mindraker 10:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources. besides which the name and country produce zero hits on google.jonathon 01:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I came to the same conclusion as others via google. This is almost certainly a hoax. Doctorfluffy 07:51, 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 deletion, no assertion of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob's Burgers[edit]

Prod removed, concern is general notability of the subject Kwsn (Ni!) 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There isn't any data to suggest notability, though sources would probably fix that. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as written. Llajwa 18:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:CORP guidelines for inclusion. No evidence of notability has been established since there are no references to extensive, third party discussion of the topic. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:29, 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 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Sunshine[edit]

No assertion nor evidence of notability for either the documentary nor it's creators. TexasAndroid 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Needs sources; cursory google only shows up Fishbone's song of the same name. --Gwern (contribs) 18:49 26 October 2007 (GMT)

The documentary is in production. I will add an infobox and a link to their web site. Henry kumagai 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More than that is needed. You need to provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references to establish the film's notability. Notability is at the core of this deletion discussion. If you can show that the film is notable, by the standards of the project, then great. If you cannot, then the article will most likely be deleted. - TexasAndroid 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), "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". When the film is released, it may meet guidelines, at which point an article would be appropriate. There's nothing to indicate that the production is itself notable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete No third party sources. Movie in prodcution? Wait till the theatrical release before recreating it. And then do that if it wins an award.jonathon 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, but requires sources. Redirecting to Proud Mary would be acceptable, subject to consensus, until secondary sources are available. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Newsome[edit]

Notability claimed, but not demonstrated. I was unable to find any evidence of notability searching for additional sources. Toddstreat1 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't find anything online except social networking sites. Non notable as written. Llajwa 18:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect to Proud Mary unless sources for solo activity can be found. I've been searching, and I can't find anything to suggest that this musician has garnered notability per WP:MUSIC sufficient for a stand-alone article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. He is a member of a notable band (Proud Mary), was a member of another (The Ya Ya's, although perhaps their notability is contestable), and plays on a notable album (Unkle Dysfunktional) by another notable act (The Happy Mondays). The article also describes considerable further activity beyond Proud Mary. That seems more than enough evidence of notability and reason for an article of his own separate to that for Proud Mary. Explicitly qualifies under WP:MUSIC: "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above", i.e. for Proud Mary. Bondegezou 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It's true that the article describes these things, but in order to establish notability per WP:BIO, "The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." WP:MUSIC agrees: "Also, to meet Wikipedia:Attribution, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page -- the article itself must document notability". In order for the article to survive as a stand-alone, it needs secondary sourcing. Currently, the only source for the article is a primary one. I agree that the individual is notable, though as I stated above I believe his notability rests with his band rather than individually. All of the sources that I have been able to find mention him solely in context of Proud Mary. I do not currently see any evidence that his contribution to Uncle Dysfunktional is a significant assertion of notability. According to the liner notes set out at AMG, Newsome is credited rather vaguely with "help" on that album. I have not found any coverage for his support work on tour with other bands or any support of the assertion that he is a gold selling artist (I came up goose eggs on the RIAA search engine for his name individually and for Proud Mary). As far as the The Ya Ya's are concerned, The Ya Ya's may inherit notability from the members who went on from it to form separate projects (although I note the article is unsourced and have tagged it, and I see that it has recently been speedied per CSD:A7), but arguably that isn't a two-way street. Newsome does not seem to be notable for his contribution to The Ya Ya's. Again, secondary coverage could prove me wrong. But I haven't found any, and there isn't any offered in the article. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 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 withdrawn by nominator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 16:09, October 27, 2007 (UTC)

Amedio Jungle[edit]

This is all obvious cruft and plot summary information Pilotbob 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the pages below for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or redirect to an appropriate list such as List of fictional locations (Dungeons & Dragons). The place descriptions come from the D&D settings & maps made up for the game instructions, and hence the primary sources have no fictional significance per se. Lots of ghits from fansites, but no reliable secondary source to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect as per above. It needs better sources; the majority are not secondary. Subject is quite notable in the D&D niche however, but secondary sources need to show it. Ukulele 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oerth and Krynn absolutely -- they're as major as things come in D&D, being the worlds that two of the biggest settings for D&D, Greyhawk and Dragonlance, take place on. I'd keep Flanaess, as well, as it's a pretty significant location on Oerth, but I'd be fine with merging Amedio Jungle into Flanaess, which needs work and could be improved by merging some of the smaller areas into it. I'm not sure how I feel about Pharagos: The Battleground... if someone can think of a good place to merge it, that would be OK, but I haven't thought of a place for it. (This nomination isn't a very good use of AfD bundling, as the things in question are at quite different levels of importance.) Pinball22 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can understand why a location may be used frequently as a game setting, and hence all the ghits on fansites. However, can you explain why these locations come to have notability? Arem't they just names taken from a book of game settings? --Gavin Collins 16:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oerth and Krynn are more than just "names"... they're the setting of large numbers of modules and novels, and are directly the subject of various books that are specifically information about these worlds to provide background for campaigns set on them -- [7], [8], [9] are some examples. Pinball22 18:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't comment about the notability of the books you have cited, but unless I am mistaken, they are categorised as primary sources. Copying the place names from a book instructions does not make these books or places any more notable. I will admit that writing books that mimic D&D does make commercial sense, but there are no secondary sources to demonstrate commercial or literaty notability. --Gavin Collins 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oerth and Krynn, definitely. The sheer volume of books written by various authors that take place in these settings is enough to warrant it.Allegrorondo 17:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bad choice for group deletion proposal. -- JHunterJ 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oerth and Krynn are at least as notable as Faerun. The Flanaess is the place where all the action on Oerth takes place, so keep that as well. Amedio Jungle could be merged into Flanaess, and I don't know the significance/notability of Pharagos. BOZ 18:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are good references about the game itself, but notability is not inherited. I agree with User:Gavin.collins -- make a list page for all the games locations -- if not simply a section of the main article. Llajwa 19:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be that they're larger than that. Krynn, for one, is the setting of *checks* HOLY EFFIN EXPLETIVE 190 NOVELS, and as mentioned above, analytical works have been published specifically about it. --Kizor 19:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And add references to secondary sources. There must be plenty. Rray 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really bad choice for mass nomination. Flanaess, Oerth, and Krynn are all major -- between them there must be nearly a thousand books published about/set in/dedicating one or more chapters to these places. Thus without prejudice toward later re-nomination, I recommend closing this proposal. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I keep hearing about how this is a poor choice for mass nominiation. I would like to withdrawl this nomination (if possible) so the individual articles that may pass notability criteria (or for which notability can be established) can be considered separately from the others that may not. Pilotbob 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Pinball22.--Robbstrd 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep in particular for Krynn, which is the subject of a helluva of most notable books, games and series... --Raistlin 13:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Krynn and Oerth; they have certainly been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works, though independence I'm not sure about (does it have to be independent of TSR/WotC or just Hickmann & Weis?). Abstain on others, I haven't come across them. Percy Snoodle 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DreamHost[edit]

This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The article needs to cite more sources. Delete J 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It hosts over half a million domains, and has been in business for ten years; it is one of the largest and most notable of Web hosts. *Dan T.* 17:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dtobias. I too have heard quite a bit about Dreamhost, and am sure it meets WP:CORP. --Gwern (contribs) 18:50 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep. It's in the top 15 hosting companies worldwide. In the future, please make an effort to discuss any issues at an article's talkpage first, instead of leaping straight to AfD. --Quiddity 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Neurophyre^(talk) 20:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apart from being one of the larger domain/hosting companies in the world, the company is notable for its unusual transparency (properly cited in the article). The suggestion that the article may not be properly cited is a little bizarre, to be honest. -- Scjessey 14:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article contains useful information for webmasters and for users. It is NOT advertisement.-- Alessandro Bottoni - Oct. the 29th. 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbottoni (talk • contribs) 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's spam!!!! nothing special!!! Yourname 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No improvement since the last time it went to AfD (result: no consensus; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravenet Web Services). There's one independent source that I can see in the references, and that refers to a malware attack done through sites hosted by the service. —C.Fred (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article needs to cite more sources, then add more sources. Burntsauce 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 10:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is one of the largest web hosting and domain providers in the world by domain count [10] . Of course the article may benefit from some improvement. Nabbia 16:40, 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. --Tikiwont 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis rainer[edit]

I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria. There is a source, but it's a fan site, and I can't find any more reliable sources with my own googling. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Way down the list of credits of the one series in which he is a semi-regular. Clarityfiend 16:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. doesn't meet WP:BIO Worldfamousdirector 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TGreenburgPR 00:47, 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 and redirect. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bible[edit]

Content fork of this diff of "Bible" to this diff of "Christian Bible", with Hebrew Bible section removed. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete making it a redirect to The Bible. Obviously these two articles are about the same thing, so they should be one article. The redirect is the best solution. 199.71.183.2 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't take offense at this, but am I wrong in thinking that Christian Bible and Bible should be Merged because they might be the... same? Mindraker 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The argument appears to be that since there is a holy book sometimes referred to as the Hebrew Bible, the articles should be independent of each other. I disagree, but I can see the point.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, I see what you're saying. I thought they called it the Torah, instead of the 'Hebrew Bible'. Or is that essentially what "Torah" means? If that's the case, the specification of "Christian Bible", and then "Bible" might be necessary. Mindraker 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this article stays then Bible must be rewritten to be about Bibles (i.e. scriptures) in general, but I think that's a second rate solution. My understanding is that Jews call their Scriptures the "Hebrew Bible" only to explain what it is to non-Jews, and would never call them "The Bible" if they could avoid it. 199.71.183.2 20:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to our own article, Hebrew Bible is just a term for portions of scripture common to the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Old Testament. 199.71.183.2 20:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Bible" might be a good disambiguation page -- going to things like "KJV", "Hebrew Bible", "Christian Bible", etc. Mindraker 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page is Bible (disambiguation). Scripture need not equate to Bible. For example, The Book of Mormon is scripture for Mormons, but it is not part of the Bible. jonathon 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - the holy books of each religion have their own names in which they are commonly known. No need to reverse justify THE Bible. -- Emana 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. Wryspy 05:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect per others. Doctorfluffy 22:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is a POV fork. The only issue should be whether or not the fork is justifiable. There has been some discussion of this on the talk page for Bible. The consensus was to rewrite/re-organize the article on the Bible, until/unless the different theological positions grew to require a separate article. jonathon 02:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question should be asked if there is any distinction between Christian Bible and Bible. The assumption of a Christian is that they are the same. However, what does that mean to a Hindu or Taoist looking for NPOV research on the issue. It seems prejudicial to take it that the two (Christian Bible and Bible) are the same. And, although those of the Jewish tradition might generally prefer other terms to label their version of the bible, it seems that the assumption they only refer to their bible as such is reaching a bit far. The original texts are from their tradition, afterall. Another question is, would there be many people looking up the term Christian Bible? A simple redirect would handle this for now, but it seems if there is a lot of searching on that term, people might be expecting to find something under that entry which is different from Bible. Fcsuper 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism has its own names for its scriptures, and Hinduism doesn't seem to have an equivalent. Non-Christian religions seem to refer to their scriptures as 'Bible' only when they are seeking to explain them to those of Christian culture. Like Christians might try to explain the Bible to a Muslim as "The Christian Koran". 199.71.183.2 15:47, 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 delete - clearly fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 11:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alfreda Williams[edit]

Vanity article with no independent sources to indicate that this local politician is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep ~~Keep~~: But clean up. It took me a couple of seconds to find a NYT article on the woman. Granted this is written as an autobiography, but it appears that she's notable. I'll add the NYT article as a citation. Toddstreat1 16:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you are referring to the article about public computer records, I saw it. The article is about the debated practice of municipalties placing what may be sensitive information online. She is cited as an example of a town clerk engaged in this debate. I don't think that makes her notable. The only other articles I see about her make mention of her in passing. Cap'n Walker 16:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, significnatly short of WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was "Delete- along with a four-to-one majority, I also fail to see any notability, especially when the entire article is in-universe and there are no reliable sources." Mike (Kicking222) 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nasher Alagondar[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Mikeblas 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable. No assertion of notability.Worldfamousdirector 01:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a lot more notable than a lot of other D&D related characters which have pages devoted to them. The subject of the article is prominent in a major setting of the game, as well as several computer games. How is this non-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.113.202 (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. No secondary sources as required to establish notability. Doctorfluffy 05:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Doctorfluffy. The heavy in universe plot summary is no substiture for secondary sources. --Gavin Collins 22:52, 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 delete. --bainer (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran with disputed status[edit]

Closer's notes
Some searching reveals at least some of the text to be copied from an article by Bernard Edelman in the VVA Veteran magazine, January/February 2003 (can't find an online version at the moment) so a merger would not be appropriate.

No-one commenting here was opposed to having some coverage of the topic however, and as Edison suggested, that should probably be done in the veteran article. --bainer (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this article even exists. Completely original research, cites no sources, unverified, and lists many living people by name. Delete. Crockspot 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm citing the OR issue here, but I also smell a rat - it almost has the flavor of a copyvio, but I can't find anything to substantiate said copyvio. CNN link is dead. Not really well written, feels patchworkish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't an article, its an editorial, completely unsourced. Its mindboggling that nobody has brought up this afd before.-Hal Raglan 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:V, WP:NOR. While the topic is real, the article in its current form is unsalvageable. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Veteran. There are certainly numerous reliable sources about phony war heros, including politicians, who have been exposed as phonies with respect to their "heroic" war service. "Phony veteran" gets 618 Google hits. An example is the Tehachapi News article [11] about the FBI arresting phonies who claim to be Congressional Medal of Honor recipients. This topic should be covered in Wikipedia, but it could be part of the Veteran article. I disagree with the accusations of o.r. or copyvios, since the text is sourced to two news stories listed as external sources, but is not a direct cut and paste. Edison 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergewith Veteran and have link to imposer These are not just people playing around, many organizations have been hurt by phonies. I can come up with several sources, see Lisa Jane Phillips. Phonies need to be exposed, just like any imposers, however this article could be part of the veteran and impostor articles. Lyta79 05:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The phrase "veteran with disputed status" is a neologism which garners virtually no Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The overall subject of people making false claims to military service is notable and verifiable, but I'm not sure where it should go in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 05:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best, the title of the article is wrong. jonathon 02:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and reduce to stub.
1. The present title of this article is very poor, as it presumes that alleged veterans are actual veterans; a better title might be “Disputed Claims of Military Service”.
2. Some sort of article on such disputed claims would probably be a Good Thing. The present content of poor quality can be removed without deleting the whole article.
—SlamDiego_←T 07:43, 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 redirect to list of B roads in Great Britain. --bainer (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B3092 road[edit]

A minor road, with no assertion of notability of any kind. Article consists solely of directions. I tried to redirect this to List of B roads in Great Britain, which would have been the logical step, but was reverted. Suggest delete and redirect. Neil ☎ 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into said list. It can't be the purpose of an encyclopedia to paraphrase Google Maps. I don't see anything beyond that in the article. --B. Wolterding 18:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing to merge into the list - a redirect would cover it. Neil ☎ 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Observation. The second sentence seems to assert notability: For much of its length it is in the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.. Colonel Warden 18:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability for West Wiltshire - OK, but for the road? --B. Wolterding 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. I have a flat in Chester. That doesn't make my flat notable. Neil ☎ 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list per Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/B roads in the United Kingdom Regan123 10:30, 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. Tikiwont 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlit Soup[edit]

The only thing that kept me from adding a "speedy" template was the line about Perez Hilton, which, although an assertion of notability, does not help the article meet WP:BIO. Ichormosquito 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any reference that means this subject passes WP:BIO. -- Mikeblas 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted. He is very popular among the Youtube community. WHATTHEBUCKSHOW's Michael Buckley always mentions him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyRoche (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO or WP:Notable, and being mentioned by another YouTuber doesn't confer any notability. Accounting4Taste 19:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Accounting4Taste. Doctorfluffy 19:41, 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. --Tikiwont 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Port City Java[edit]

little content, notability, unsourced. This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Jameson L. Tai 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and expand on the Dubai deal. Mystache 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done. Carson 17:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Mystache Jauerback 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable stub. Colonel Warden 18:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Colonel Warden. --Gwern (contribs) 18:51 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep Needs expansion but is notable enough.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not fit into WP:DEL or WP:NOT#DIR, and has secondary articles per WP:N.Carson 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I live in North Carolina. This isn't a notable business. If it gets kept, it needs sources at a minimum. What is the difference between this and an advertisement? Mindraker 23:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's more of a southeastern business, covering from what I can tell Wilmington/Jacksonville/Raleigh. It doesn't blanket the state, that's for sure. Carson 16:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Comment. I agree, that's why I nominated the article for deletion in the first place. I have told the user to use {{hangon}} and {{inuse}} so he could continue editing the article in hopes that the article would survive, but it has not been the case. Since nominating for AfD, the article's been practically untouched while the user continues to add more userboxes in his user page and ranting about "Tagging passes the buck. Deleting a good stub is akin to sheer laziness. Quoting a WP reference page every few lines to back-up your maliciousness only goes to show your lack of understanding of the core of this project." It's sad. Really sad. Jameson L. Tai 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So, what exactly happened to "focus on the content, not the contributor"? How is calling me sad not akin to a personal attack? Also, that was posted on my user page, not directed at you in general. Mate, get off your high horse. Carson 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there a standard bar for notability on coffee houses and restaurants? If this is akin to advertising, then so be it -- there are enough restaurant articles to fill a volume, some of similar notability, and they should be purged. I should have clarified -- this isn't "all over" NC/SC, but is more coastal (Wilmington carries at least 8-10). I agree that it's not the most notable in terms of international, and under different circumstances I might agree with a VfD. However, it is a chain, and it is expanding into the Middle East, making it, in a sense, an international business. Just what does it take to make something worthy of an article on Wikipedia? Carson 16:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There are still no references for notability--when the chain actually has built its branches into Dubai, and the media notices it, then it might be notable.DGG (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article created 2007-10-26T12:18:10. AfD filed 2007-10-26T15:02:50 Looks like a bad faith nomination. I can't tell if it is notable or not. But the person who created the article was still working on it when the AfD was submitted. Needs 3rd party sources. WP:CORP guidelines need to be added. Infobox would help. jonathon 03:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the Mzoli's test for me, give it some time to develop. And then give it some more time. Burntsauce 16:27, 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 speedy redirect. J Milburn 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Tails[edit]

A redirect to the children's TV show Dragon Tales is being replaced with a article about a web comic. The web-comic shows no assertion of notability, and no independent sourcing. Would likely be A7-Web Speedy fodder, except that IMHO it should not be deleted, but restored to the redirect. An AFD will give a few days to see if there are indeed any sources to be found for the web-comic, and if not it will put authority behind enforcing that the page stay as a redirect. TexasAndroid 14:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the webcomic, create a protected redirect to the kids' show. Seems like the obvious solution here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed and done Publicola 14:47, 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 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve James (musician)[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion as reposted (and contested), but has in the past only been speedied and never discussed, so let's do so now. Tikiwont 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I speedied this, there is little content, and the two obscure newspaper refs hardly fulfil Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. Jimfbleak 14:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N
Delete - I like his music and guitar but hes not notable. Sorry Steve. Worldfamousdirector 01:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Stubs don't make an article. I don't see enough information that would help anybody who was not a fan add content to demonstrate notability.jonathon 03:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not yet pass WP:MUSIC but might at a later date. Maybe next time? Burntsauce 16:28, 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. Ρх₥α 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of doo-wop songs[edit]

An unmaintainable list. List of doo wop musicians sufficiently covers the topic; we don't need a list of every doo wop song written, just like there are no List of rock songs or List of hip hop songs articles. 17Drew 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because of the musicians list that we already have. No reason for both; list of musicians, and list of songs (by the same musicians on the first list). - Rjd0060 05:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Ke-ke-ke-ke-keep sha-na-na-na. I'm familiar with many of the songs on the list and they seem to be notable ones, so it serves to point out which ones lack articles. It's not unmaintainable - new doo-wop songs are rather rare. It should probably be trimmed a bit though. Clarityfiend 06:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to List of doo wop musicians?) as it is an 'inverted' list of the same - just need to list the song with its musician. SkierRMH 06:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the same (specious, IMO) reason for deletion could be offered for that list, too. Then what? Jeh 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm guessing that there's already a consensus to have lists of musicians by genre since artists often make significant impacts on genres on a genre, unlike individual songs such as album tracks. 17Drew 20:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps repurpose to "significant doo-wop songs" (as defined by their being mentioned in other references, such as John Javna's book, or covered multiple times) and trim it back. Jeh 23:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify Seems like a viable category. Useless as an article. — MusicMaker5376 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is a very useful article, and there are hundreds more structured just like it on a wide variety of subjects. The redlinks alone make this list worth keeping, as cateogories are incapable of displaying redlinks. See: Wikipedia:Red link. This nomination should not be an issue of categories vs. lists, as the two overlap in very positive and synergistic ways. To favor one over the other is counterproductive, as there are users who prefer to build categories and there are users who prefer to build lists. The two camps leapfrog each other. Lists have many advantages over categories, but the two working in concert as a whole is greater than the sum of the two parts. The Transhumanist 02:58, 27 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 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To many red links and no real way to source this list. The notable songs have articles, so this seems like a clear case of a subject that is better served by category.Ridernyc 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is a list of topics, and not a list of articles. Therefore, the existence of redlinks is not a consideration for deletion. Redlinks are to be encouraged, not discouraged, as they are useful indicators and present opportunities for the expansion of Wikipedia's coverage. Please see Wikipedia:Red link for more information. The Transhumanist 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Drew, please explain in explicit detail how this list is unmaintainable. We're managing to maintain Wikipedia, which has over 2,000,000 articles. So I'm very interested to learn how this list of topics, which is tiny in comparison, eludes maintainability in your opinion. Which acts of maintenance are impossible on this list, and how are they so? The Transhumanist 02:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is nothing near a complete list of all doo-wop songs. Were it close to complete, it'd essentially be a huge catalog of songs, with too many entries to perform any sort of maintenance task. That's why Category:Doo-wop songs is far preferrable, and part of why all other genres only use a category and not a list. 17Drew 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - who is to say that the list of musicians covers this topic sufficiently for the whole World's population? How do you know that there aren't users who would would like to browse songs by song title, rather than by the composer's name? All the libraries I've visited list their books by author, by title, and by subject. So the creator of this list was in no way out of line or off base. The list serves a standard referencing purpose, and adds value over categories by including further details in annotations, and also due to the fact that building lists is far more efficient than building categories. (Categories are decentralized and awkward to build, and they are not subject to feature expansion as lists are, such as formatting, subheadings, annotations, lead sections, etc.). This list is also useful for tracking coverage of this subject (via redlinks), and also serves as a task list for those interested in writing articles about notable doo-wop songs. That Wikipedia lacks lists on other genres of songs is not a compelling argument for deletion of this list, as it simply means no one has gotten around to making decent lists for those genres yet. Deficiency in one area is a poor argument for extending that deficiency to other areas. All the reasons given by the nominator for deletion are invalid. The Transhumanist 02:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "This list is also useful for tracking coverage of this subject (via redlinks), and also serves as a task list for those interested in writing articles about notable doo-wop songs." Perhaps editors interested in articles about doo-wop songs could form a WikiProject on the topic, then move this list from the mainspace to their subspace. Thus the list is easily accessible by those whom it would best serve, but not to the general reader who would neither care about nor have the ability to remove the redlinks. Just a suggestion. JFlav 18:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people want a database of all doo-wop songs, then they should be using a database, not an encyclopedia. Task lists do not go in the article space; they belong in either someone's user space or in the project space. That there aren't lists of songs for other (more notable) genres doesn't imply that information about those genres is underdeveloped; it indicates that those genres, many of which receive more attention, do not have a consensus that this sort of list is appropriate for Wikipedia. 17Drew 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I'd suggest transwiki if there was somewhere move it to. Lists like this are useful to people who don't know the material. Barry Mann has a song in the list, but isn't in the list of musicians. I'll leave to somebody else to decided whether or not Who Put the Bomp (song) - Barry Mann belongs on the list jonathon 03:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some might find this WP:USEFUL, but that's what we have categories for. Burntsauce 20:39, 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 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Persia 4[edit]

Violates WP:NOR and WP:CBALL. MrStalker ^talk 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even announced. Until then, this article is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerback 15:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total speculation, and nobody has any article more substantive than 'hey, there was some leaked artwork and the last games made quite a bit of money so there is almost certain to be yet another Prince of Persia game'. Sure, the odds of 4 being made is darn close to 100%, but still. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Speedy Delete, "ubisoft has not confermed or aknowlaged this title". That ladies and gents is a clear example of WP:CRYSTAL. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "This game has never been officially announced nor acknowledged to exist by Ubisoft" Mindraker 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 10:47, 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 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Site 42[edit]

Absolutely ungrounded in reality, with no sources and generally utter BS. Mikael GRizzly 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but rumors.Ridernyc 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystal ball and all that. --Goochelaar 14:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless there is something more substantial in real info and sources. Jauerback 15:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure speculation. Zetawoof_(ζ) 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unscientific and unencyclopedic. Mindraker 10:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete. Oh, and delete. Burntsauce 16:27, 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. Neil ☎ 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of followers of Meher Baba[edit]

Massive list of people that met someone. The title is not correct at the very least as one section lists people that "served or corresponded with Baba but did not call themselves followers". I'm not sure how useful a list this is considering that the majority are not notable and for the others it's mostly an irrelevance (where otherwise I'm sure it's detailed in their own article or they are included in the appropriate category). violet/riga (t) 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Delete. violet/riga (t) 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. → AA ^(talk) — 14:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cott12 14:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no sources, no mention of how the individuals are tied to the subject. Ridernyc 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. The followers of Meher Baba, known to themselves as "Baba-lovers," are a real and fairly significant religion. A list of the early followers is legitimate and notable, not a directory. The problem is that like most (if not all) religions, this one is a goofy cult and it's hard in practice to keep an article like this from becoming devotional literature. It's also much too long. But I think that it would be a mistake to delete. Llajwa 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve as above. Remove list of those that are not followers. Keep the ones that are. Abronkeeler 22:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start over with defined criteria. This finally is something that is truly an indiscriminate list. Perhaps we should preserve it in some manner as a example of what the word means. DGG (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In as much most of it covers the early part of Baba lovers, it is useful. It does need major editing. Delete "famous people" tables. It also needs third party sources. (The other alternative is to transwiki it.) jonathon 03:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the two sections listing people who were not followers as they do not conform to title. Cott12 10:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs sources. Almost every entry is unsourced.Ridernyc 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the names come from a single 20 volume published encylopedia of his life listed at the bottom. Most also are found in lists from that source that are actually linked to in external links. If every one had a reference, there would be over 400 references, mostly going to the same few pages over and over. Cott12 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Doctorfluffy 05:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:34, 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 merge to Change of Mind. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherrif Webb[edit]

Yet another piece of Leslie Nielsen cruft. Article concerns a minor character in Change of Mind and sourced exclusively to the article's contributor. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Change of Mind. Seems to be a major charcter, fourth-billed per the IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge - again, this character isn't a non-notable character. Still keep it, but if a full character article can't be created on him, I'd at least merge it with the article of the character's film - Change of Mind. Lra drama 14:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a non notable character by the Wikipedia definition "notability", unless you can find non-trivial coverage about this character in reliable sources? Crazysuit 17:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the film article. No real-world notability for this character. Crazysuit 17:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Music2611, the only user who made any significant contribution to thes article actually blanked the page. I did not, however, delete the article per CSD G7, because of this AFD. Schutz 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 20:55, 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 merge to Wrongfully Accused. which I have done. Could use cleanup, though. Neil ☎ 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Harrison (Character)[edit]

Article about a fictional character in a one-off Leslie Nielsen spoof. Most of the article is a plot summary of Wrongfully Accused. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the protagonist of the film. Otherwise, you can around deleting articles on pretty much every protagonist in every movie that didn't see a sequel. Mikael GRizzly 14:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the character in any way significant outside of the fiction of the film? Wrongfully Accused is on the margins of notability as is. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 14:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional protagonists who have no impact on society beyond the fictional vehicle they're in are not independently notable. Many of thost pages should be deleted. Llajwa 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike the Change of Mind case above, this one is the main character. Second choice, merge into the film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the character that is central to film's plot. And the character has plenty of Google search hits. The article might need editing to make it bigger and better, but the character is significant enough to warrent his own article. Lra drama 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this character significant? Because "Ryan Harrison - wrongfully accused" gets 23,00 ghits to database websites, film reviews, dvd retailers, and film quotations? Can you find one reliable source which describes, in no uncertain terms, the significance of this character in fiction or culture? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN character. Why is there an entry fo the character that describes the entire movie but the article for the movie is nothing more then a list of trivia. Ridernyc 14:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wrongfully Accused, which for some reason has no plot summary at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the main film article. Characters only get articles if they have real-world notability, which this one doesn't. We can't start having separate articles on thousands of non notable film protagonists, just because they were in a film. Crazysuit 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. It's the movie that's notable, not the protagonist. Llajwa 22:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notabilty Secret ^sup 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. No secondary sources indicating notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 01:59, 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, the keep voters didn't provide a valid reason to keep this article, while the delete side agrues policy. This is a Secret ^account 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters on Ugly Betty[edit]

The notability of the show does not affect the notability of the topic (minor characters). As the title suggests, the list is composed completely of minor characters, most - if not all (I haven't really checked) - of whom only appear in one episode. The characters actually worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, not fanwiki, have relevant information that can be found in episode or main character articles. •97198 talk 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another list of NN characters from a tv show. We don't need to list every tiny detail on every subject. Ridernyc 14:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep popular show, reasonable division of topics. JJL 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it also 100% unsourced. and I doubt there will ever be sources for this. Ridernyc 00:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the article name to make it look more like List of one-time characters and guest stars on Desperate Housewives. Robert Moore 09:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks for finding another article that needs to be deleted. Ridernyc 19:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT. Secondary sources do not exist to establish notability for these characters. Doctorfluffy 05:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Harrison[edit]

Article on minor fictional character. There's only one sentence actually describing the character ("first one to die") and a section on who portrayed the character in different adaptations of the fictional work. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - this is partially my "fault" - I deleted a huge chunk of original retale of the movie plot. See this version of the article `'Míkka 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very non-notable character. Jauerback 15:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to the movie. `'Míkka 16:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth merging. The creator appears to have started creating articles for every single minor character Leslie Nielsen has played, he should be stopped before this gets silly. Crazysuit 16:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too minor. JJL 02:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor character, non notable. Doctorfluffy 01:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with the proviso that unreferenced entries should be removed. --bainer (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian religious minority politicians[edit]

I was going to speedy this as a WP:BLP concern but thought it nicer to bring it here. The article is totally unsourced and claims religious views on numerous Italian politicians, most of whom don't even have their own article, the notability of people in this list is then also called into question. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nominator: Delete. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Keep - Checco has done some good work adding references to the article and this has alleviated some of the concerns. I would however ask that those people without references be removed until a time that a source can be provided. violet/riga (t) 09:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is most of them are historical figures and, although there is no doubt about their affiliation, I can't find a source in the internet and I haven't time to go in a library and do some reasearch. --Checco 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the politicians in this list are or were leading politicians: most of them are or were MPs, members of government, regional presidents or MPs and so on. I can put some references. Anyway, I can only say that such a list, not only because I worked hard on it, is very useful and iteresting, as most lists are. Moreover, it is very interesting to know the religious affiliation of politicians, especially when some religious communities are very tied with politics, as it is in Italy. --Checco 13:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Useful" and "interesting" are not good reasons to create or keep an article (I would find it very useful to have a page with the telephone numbers of takeaway reastaurants in my neighbourhood, indeed). A list like this would need at least a reference for each person mentioned (plus a section devoted to freethinkers and the like), and in any case it would be very delicate (and quite unencyclopedic), to say the least. Finally, being restricted to religious "minority", the article misses the religious community most "tied with politics" in Italy, that being the (understandable) concern of the article's creator. --Goochelaar 14:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article is useful as all list of religious politicians or people are. I will put all the references if this is what is needed. --Checco 14:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY alone. Jauerback 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - I've looked over this again, and maybe I was wrong with my initial assessment. I guess WP:USEFUL works both ways. Just because I don't think it's useful, doesn't mean it's not necessarily encyclopedic. Jauerback 03:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if references, I think it is encyclopedic -- religious affiliations of politicians is clearly relevant in my book. —Nightstallion 16:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may very well be relevant, but I believe it should be in the politician's article itself rather than here. violet/riga (t) 16:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on the references. --Checco 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The work might take some time, so please wait. --Checco 17:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightstallion; as for the WP:N issue, I can confirm that many of those who have red links are certainly notable. It must be understood that Italian articles suffer from a serious (and possibly unexpected) problem of systemic bias.--Aldux 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted many references, so that the argument about lack of refences does not apply anymore to the article. I hope that my work won't be washed away. Thank you all. --Checco 19:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to me a notable list. Minority-religion politicians in a religiously non-diverse society form a notable and well-defined subject-matter. The danger as I see it is not non-notability but original research. The article would be much stronger with references to secondary sources on the general phenomenon, as opposed to just information about each individual politician's religious affiliation. Llajwa 22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one of the sources (the most used for Protestants) links to a list of books of parliamentary speeches. Among these there is a book about Protestants in the Italian Parliament:

8. Evangelici in Parlamento (1850-1982)

Discorsi parlamentari di Giuseppe Malan, Giovanni Morelli, Bonaventura Mazzarella, Giorgio Sonnino, Sidney Sonnino, Giulio Peyrot, Enrico Soulier, Matteo Gay, Dante Argentieri, Giuseppe Bogoni e Tullio Vinay. Introduzione di D. Maselli; a cura di G. Long, 1999, pp. LXII-578, Euro 33,57 (DP02500)

--Checco 23:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was somewhat skeptical but there does seem to be some realiable sources for this. DGG (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the country, the list is useful.(And somebody needs to start writing articles about Italian politicians in English.) jonathon 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand remarks like "some religious communities are very tied with politics", "religious affiliations of politicians is clearly relevant", "Given the country, the list is useful" and the like. Given that these are given as arguments relevant to the keeping of this article, they should either be obvious to everybody, or sourced. Is there something I ignore about the relevance of being a waldensian or a jew to Italian politics? --Goochelaar 10:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst everybody claims to ignore The Holy See, the masses do affect how that power is played out.jonathon 00:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just an obscure list, with contextual value add. I see no reason not to use categories. Burntsauce 16:32, 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 without prejudice. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vok Liqueurs[edit]

This is a list of liquors made by a certain company. Even though it is not a copyvio from their website (was deleted as such but the permission email was sent to OTRS), it is definitely listcruft. Delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it's a clear delete, but a rewritten article on the company would be worth keeping, as Vok is a fairly major brand. I'm surprised we don't have one, actually, but I see that the article at Vok is about yet another of those damn Transformers articles. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have just added the rest of the information that was intended to be included with this article when posted. Hopefully this helps it's cause. Jessica.underwood 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there was an article on the company, I'd say merge it. However, there is not an article. If it's not notable to have an article, I doubt its liquers will be. So delete. i ^said 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now also an article on the company - see Vok Beverages Jessica.underwood 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up as time allows. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article on the company "Vok Beverages" has now been deleted. I presume somebody thought it was spam. Jessica.underwood 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero WP:RS at all. There is not much to keep. Bearian 00:55, 26 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, Gnan garra 11:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Gnan garra 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 12:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a pretty obvious case of COI at work here, and while the article may not be blatantly spammy it clearly isn't an enyclopedia article in either content or tone. Phrases like "greatest contributions to the list of the world's great drinks" sound like they come right from the back of the bottle. Support a neautral, fully-sourced article on the company itself, but only if written by those unaffiliated with the company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice, per Andrew Lenahan. As a brick & mortar business making consumer goods, I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of a doubt. But this article is pure puffery. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:40, 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 delete per WP:CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). —David Eppstein 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tornambe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Substantial secondary coverage for this jockey is lacking. After the first AfD, the article was recreated under a different title, then moved back. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and tagged as so. Jauerback 15:45, 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. Tikiwont 16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air-Therm Inc[edit]

Non-notable as per WP:CORP akaDruid 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like a ad, too. Jauerback 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. Doctorfluffy 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable even in the city where it is based. --Blanchardb 22:39, 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 no consensus to delete. Could probably do with more sources, though. Neil ☎ 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Child Prodigies[edit]

I do not believe that this constitutes encyclopedic material. It is obviously incomplete, and is unreferenced and completely originally researched. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is unreferenced and completely originally researched. The article would need to have a suitable source covering the subject. --SmokeyJoe 12:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent references have been added, and they demonstrate that this is a notable subject. --SmokeyJoe 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research...also agree with nom on encyclopedic value Bjewiki (Talk) 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category - this is what categories are for. — Quasirandom 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support a conversion to a category. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. Per Quasirandom, this sort of scattershot, indefinitely long list is definitely a category sort of thing. (I also question some of the article, like the Fullmetal Alchemist examples - sure, Ed and Al are prodigies in alchemy, but nothing else, and their alchemic abilities only come from the Gate of Alchemy in the first place). --Gwern (contribs) 19:00 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep Looking at the relatively short list of items, and the relatively full descriptions, Ii seems most of them are clearly notable for being fictional child prodigies, as the major element in their characterisation. Thus it is not indiscriminate, the subject is encyclopedic, and sourcing is easily possible from the reviews of the material. Selecting notable material for an article is not OR. Problems can be dealt with by editing. DGG (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a heap of stuff that was recently unceremoniously dumped out of Child prodigy. It was inappropriate there and inappropriate here. It's just a heap of random assignments of the term "child prodigy" to juvenile fictional characters. --Tony Sidaway 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 05:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be just trivial and original research. RobJ1981 17:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

selecting notable material for an article is not OR.DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have made numerous improvements to the article by expanding the opening prose and adding various newspaper and scholarly references. The topic has attracted media and academic attention. The article itself is presented in a clear and encyclopedic manner. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic. Thank you. I am honestly surprised at the quality of references you found. Should Jack the Bodiless be on the list? --SmokeyJoe 06:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - saying "I do not believe that this constitutes encyclopedic material." is pretty much the definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its not. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's stubbish, obviously needs some expansion and polish, but has the potential to be a genuine encyclopedic article. (Though I agree with whomever believes this does not belong on the child prodigy page.) HeWasCalledYClept 05:41, 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.Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

INSANIA (Czech Republic)[edit]

Cluttered, opinionated and unsourced. Seems unencyclopedic. βritandβeyonce ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs serious wikification at a minimum. I will vote neutral. Mindraker 23:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cut through the frills and p.r. and there's no real indication of passing WP:BAND, and no sources. tomasz. 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some references on Czech speaking websites but it is very hard to assess how reliable they are (to me they all look like marketing). Given the "quality" of the text I think it is better to delete it. Pavel Vozenilek 18:23, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Junior School, Swindon[edit]

Non-notable primary school, redirecting is pointless since title is so long. SolidPlaid 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete directory entry for nn school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable school, and no assertion of importance. - Rjd0060 23:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough reliable third party sources in this article to meet our stringent standards for verifiability, and I believe this school to be notable enough. Some may argue that some of the sources aren't "third party enough", and I would strongly disagree with that point of view. Burntsauce 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, fails notability. Twenty Years 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Auroranorth (sign) 10:54, 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. Hut 8.5 07:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mowad[edit]

Contested prod from August – the prod notice was removed by an IP editor who removed prod tags from 12 articles in 10 minutes. This unreferenced, autobiographical article is from a man who has completed one documentary, about Miss Canada, in 2004. There's no notability here. KrakatoaKatie 09:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has worked in the industry per IMDB (though that is not a WP:RS). He is verifiable. But the mention is trivial - it is just a listing. There is no e.g. industry article on this up and coming producer. When there are multiple, non trivial sources then this chap will be notable per WP:NOTE.Obina 09:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability. The IMDB profile doesn't indicate any significant body of work. -- Whpq 15:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. IMDB score is in the millions. TGreenburgPR 06:40, 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. Tikiwont 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary Academic PerspectiveS[edit]

There do not seem to be independent sources for this organization in Nepal. A request to WikiProject Nepal turned up none either. (If you do know of sources, please add them.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability cannot be established without reliable independent sources. Doctorfluffy 19:37, 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. Arguments to keep are based on WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, neither of which are convincing. Also a lack of any secondary sources. WP:V is non-negotiable. Neil ☎ 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Ultima Universe[edit]

No secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability, as this fictional time line is primarily derived from the Ultima game manuals, which have no significance per se. Gavin Collins 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non encyclopedic trivia. Just like a pure plot summary. I'd say WP:FICT applies. The approriate amount of detail is in the main article.Obina 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Ultima series are a major part of gaming history, and the timeline is useful for reference. Mikael GRizzly 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What evidence do you have for that assertion?--Gavin Collins 14:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to an utltima wiki. This is of little use to anyone who is not already a fan of the game. Ridernyc 14:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied it to the encyclopedia gamia it can be found here So if anyone wants to edit it feel free to --Cs california 07:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia has an extensive listing of fictional timelines. Most that I've looked at have few or no references at all, as they all link to a main article. I'm not arguing that this is technically correct, but obviously an accepted standard considering the age of most of the fictional timelines in the list. The Ultima article does not appear to have a proper reference section no any in-line citations however, but does have external links-- a few of them appear to be secondary. sources. - Ukulele 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have other articles like this is no reason to kepp this, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.Ridernyc 03:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:PLOT and possibly as a copyvio of the timeline on which, according to the article, this one is based. We have deleted many such timelines over the last several months and the fact that others haven't been doesn't justify keeping this one. Otto4711 22:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ultima series is significance in gaming history [12] [13] [14] and the timeline is good reference material. Worldfamousdirector 01:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these sources provide any evidence of notability for the timeline itself. --Gavin Collins 20:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can call a plot summary a timeline, but it's still a plot summary with no real world context. Ridernyc 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Obina. Doctorfluffy 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Find some way to incorporate the timeline into the Ultima article. The timeline is useful as a condensed way of providing context. Hagan jared 02:21, 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. Neil ☎ 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pedigree (band)[edit]

PROD removed. Request for sources appears to have been ignored. A googles search for "Pedigree" obviously would bring forth a ridiculous amount of hits. However, a google search for Pedigree and Taavi Aavik (a band member) brings forth 18 hits. A search for Pedigree and Margo Rindemaa (another band member) brings forth 2 hits. Non-notable band. IrishGuy ^talk 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable band - TexasAndroid 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very non-notable, unknown even in Estonia (asked around in a party today, not that is a reason for deletion in WP). -- Sander Säde 20:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep While being not pop-music band, it's probably oldest Industrial band in Estonia and this alone makes it notable. Has performed on one of the estonias biggest concerts (Metallica) and has released album under the metal label in Estonia Nailboard Records (Metsatöll, Loits, Tharapita). For example many people don't know bands like Mayhem, Burzum or Dark Funeral either, but they are very notable nevertheless. Suva Чего? 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? -- Sander Säde 09:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two magazines which work with alternative music in Estonia, one was Pläkk and other, current one is Nailboard Magazine. I don't have archive of either one unfortunately.

I got some results from online mags: with Pedigree about Metallica concert about Ghosts and Corpses. EMC page has few reviews. That's the problem with estonian underground journalism. It sucks. Fact of being one of estonian oldest industrial groups is probably written somewhere, but I can't source it right now. As for original research, the Pedigree was founded on 1993, Whaw!Zaiks also claims to come from 1993, but is not really active anymore. Other groups came lot later. Suva Чего? 10:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Pedigree released it's first album on 1994, while Whaw!Zaiks on 1998. I do think, that [15] can be used as a source aswell. Suva Чего? 10:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - if everything here makes it to the article (with appropriate translations where applicable) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:06, 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. Asserting coverage in several sources without actually providing them is not very convincing. Neil ☎ 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AeroFox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I believe this was speedied before, but I nominate this for AfD due to sources stated and for general non-notability. It seems to be just another quasi-advertising article promoting the browser. Phgao 07:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While it is not a close enough repost to be speedied, it still has the same fundamental problems as at the time of the first AfD. Fram 08:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Software package that fails notability standards. Clever idea, though. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.just needs sources or references that . 203.221.238.37 08:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any sources to support the notability of this software. -- Whpq 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage in multiple published sources independent of the subject(if anyone has checked these references and found them to be inaccurate, I'll change my opinion), therefore passes content standards. Cynical 17:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If somebody can provide those links, that might be a saver. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Cynical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.238.209 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 203.221.238.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and is likely same person who attempted to close this AfD.[16][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Arda[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with {{nn}} and {{primarysources}}. Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those works are not cited as refs for this article. Do they actually contain non-trivial commentary on the significance of the minor places in Arda? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as do the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was discussed during the Battle of the Pelennor Fields AfD, whether THoME is counted as "independent", a point that actually needs to be discussed. Will ^(talk) 02:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them {{in-universe}} and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{in-universe}} might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the nn/ps tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous independent sources are available; The Atlas of Middle-earth by Fonstadt, The Complete Guide to Middle-earth by Foster, the J. R. R. Tolkien Encyclopedia by Drout, The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion by Hammond and Scull, et cetera. Literally dozens (possibly hundreds when languages other than English are considered) of books have been written about the works of Tolkien... with detailed analysis of the names of these places, their possible real world analogs, demographics, et cetera. Organizing and referencing everything Tolkien related which was put on Wikipedia in the earliest days of the project takes time... but the absence of references establishing notability on each article is not the same things as being 'non-notable'. These topics satisfy WP:FICTION in spades. --CBD 10:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now but Delete unless some of the alluded-to independent (of the author, Tolkien) sources are added to the article, and it is shown that the content is attributable to the independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 12:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Iamunknown and Carcharoth below, I would like the article to be allowed more time for improvement. It may be entirely original research, or derived entirely from non-independent sources. But there is also a good chance that some of the non-internet sources mentioned support the article and that those with access to these sources are hesitant to work on the article while the AfD axe hangs over it. --SmokeyJoe 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need to recreate the appendices to LotR (and similar works). If there are reliable independent sources making (some of these) locations notable, the article (or an article on these few locations) can be kept. Since these are truly minor locations, I doubt it though. Fram 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that most of these places don't have much in the way of secondary sources, beyond mentions in Tolkien atlases, guides etc, and Christopher Tolkien's writings, and so perhaps don't meet the letter of WP:FICT. However, WP:FICT is stomped on by hundreds of thousands of 100% in-universe fiction articles, most of which are from far less notable sources, so I'm wondering why start with these? Espresso Addict 15:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG. Espresso Addict - we have to start somewhere. Neil ☎ 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources"... Third-party books are allowed, look at Land of Oz. the problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the works of Tolkein are extraordinarily notable, they are also full of endless NN place, characters, items. Wikipedia is not the place to creat a massive Tolkein encyclopedia.Ridernyc 18:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. I understand the reason for nomination, but as have been brought up since nomination, Christopher Tolkien was much more than just an editor. I would like to see more sources -- and there are many secondary sources on Tolkien's world, though I don't know how many cover geography. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--proper treatment, repeal WP:FICTION, we aren't a paper venue, and many people check here first or second for information. // FrankB 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Without WP:FICTION, there's still WP:NOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) •

(contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:Fiction is a guideline not policy, it's also a guideline that I fell currently violates the policy WP:Plot. Ridernyc 13:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. —Mirlen 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the adequate sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So far the article has precisely two refs, both to the works of Tolkien's son, literary executor, posthumous editor, and completer and prolific documentor of his father's works. I really can't see tat he fits any plausible definition of "independent of the subject". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are, in addition to the works mentioned by CBDunkerson, many primary, non-independent secondary and independent secondary sources related to Middle-earth. (For one example, see Tolkien Studies: An Annual Scholary Review.) I would prefer that the Middle-earth WikiProject and other editors be given more time to work on implementing these into this article. Thus, it is my opinion that this article be kept, at least for the present time. Cheers, Iamunknown 01:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per CBD. jonathon 04:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If, as per CBD, independent sources for the content of the article exist, then why doesn’t somebody add some specific references to prove this. Otherwise, it is reasonable to assume that the material goes beyond the independent sources and is substantially original research. As it stands, the article cites no independent sources. --SmokeyJoe 07:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And lack of sources is not a reason for deletion. Leave it tagged and eventually someone will get around to adding them. I've had a quick look, and I can't from memory see anything that I haven't read elsewhere. Carcharoth 11:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so far no has brought up the issue of WP:Plot and the fact that this article it also fails to follow WP:WAF it contains no context outside the books. Ridernyc 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could indeed do with rewriting to fit Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, though there are a few fleeting bits of context outside the books: "Tolkien was apparently evoking the island of Avalon in the legend of King Arthur, although the form Avallónë literally means "near Valinor" in Quenya; compare this with Atalantë, the name of Númenor evoking Atlantis." and "The conception was supposingly discarded later, but a reference survives into the published Silmarillion." The former quote deals with allusions and sources, while the second deals with textual history (the development of the story through many versions and drafts). More like this could be added. Would that address your concerns? Carcharoth 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have discussed this above and elsewhere, and, for those reasons, keep but do lots more work to improve the article. Carcharoth 14:49, 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, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Beleriand[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with {{nn}} and {{primarysources}}. Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those works are not cited as refs for this article. Do they actually contain non-trivial commentary on the significance of the minor places in Beleriand? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as do the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply First of all, I wish we had this discussion without turning to AfD, to keep it in one place. Is there any way to do it still? We three are repeating ourselves over four AfD discussions. Uthanc 08:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would also have been my preference, but if the tags are going to be removed, I think that an AfD is appropriate. I would of course be happy to withdraw the nomination for any article for which "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" have been provided. The reason for separate nominations is that this test may be met for one of more of the articles, but not for all of them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Atlas of Middle-earth should serve then; it's independent from the Tolkiens. I think merging into Beleriand (and similar merges for the other "minor places") would be best as it would be easier to defend the notability of the information, but I'm refraining from voting until after more experienced Tolkien enthusiasts have had their say. There may be mention of these in scholarly papers, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle-earth cosmology. Uthanc 09:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An atlas usually offers only trivial coverage of many places. I'm not familiar with this publication, but without evidence to the contrary, I don't see how a mention in an atlas amounts to significant coverage. It is in any case, only one source; multiple sources are needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS a merge to Beleriand currently seems unlikely to help the notability problem, becaise the article Beleriand itself contains no references other than implicit refs to Tolkein (father or son) — so I have tagged it too with {{nn}} and {{primarysources}}. If those tags area allowed to stand, I think that at least a month should be left before considering an AfD nomination for it; there are so many unreferenced or under-referenced Tolkein articles that the editors working on that area have a lot of research to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A month? Let's be clear here. We have a small group of editors (the membership may be quite large but the active editors with access to appropriate sources is small) working on a large group of articles. This has been going on for nearly two years now. Slow progress is being made. Episodes like this are either disruptive or prod us to speed up the work/do more work, depending on the attitude and knowledge of the person doing the nomination/prodding (and I mean prodding people to do work, not prodding articles). If you would like to help us organise this better, then please do join in, but don't slap down arbitrary deadlines of a month. How about a weekly collaboration being organised, and the most important articles are queued up to be dealt with? That would show that there is a more organised plan to deal with things? If you look at this and compare it to this, you will see that the total number of articles has decreased by nearly 300. That number will go down more as further merges are performed, and hopefully the assessments will be finished by then as well. Then more work can be done. There is a plan (if not exactly written down), and the end result should be well-written and adequately sourced articles. Carcharoth 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that every time I mention notability, the response I get is about merger, but that may not always be the appropriate solution.
The subcategories of Category:Middle-earth locations contain lots of redirects where articles have merged, as evidence of your prodigious good work in merging trivia such as Bridge of Khazad-dûm, the first such article I spotted and which prompted me to look further. The problem, though, is that not even the upmerged articles establish notability. That's why I AfDed these articles: if, as it appears from the current state of the articles, even the upmerged results are non-notable, then you folks may be misdirecting your efforts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, we could be reducing the number of AfDs that will be required... :-) Seriously, in the long run that will probably save time. And I'm not joking here. AfDs are incredibly time-intensive. But I thnk we both said we'd wait until after the weekend, so I'll stop there. I do have an hour or so to spare, so will look up some Gondor refs tonight. Carcharoth 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them {{in-universe}} and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{in-universe}} might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, it does cover the notability problems, since the best way to overcome them is to cite multiple sources of commentary and analysis, which also corrects the in-universe style, which is really the fundamental problem. The reason for the non-notability tag, placed without explanation on the talk page as you did, is not obvious to those working on the articles. Talk page discussion is a minimal courtesy in these cases, and it's borderline uncivil of you to have not bothered with it. How long have you been around here that you don't understand that when you place a tag like that without discussion on an article watched by a large project, it's likely to get removed equally unceremoniously? TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Csernica, maybe the inuniverse tag would have been a good one to add as well, but that doesn't undermine the fact that there is a notability problem, which is why the {tl|nn}} tag was also relevant. It's quite possible to write an article which takes a broader perspective without actually asserting notability, let alone demonstrating it through references, so {{inuniverse}} is no substitute.
    Also, if you had been borderline civil enough to followed the link in the nomination, you'll see that I posted to the wikiproject's talk page, to centralise discussion rather than spreading it over dozens of dift talk pages. And I have been around for long enough to know that if that if such a large project is neither establishing notability for its articles nor tagging them as in need of sources, then it isn't focusing enough on the question of notability. I have been involved in another project where such tagging arose out of a nasty tit-for-tat war, but where it was only the challenge of AfD which eventually (after a lot of protest) began to focus editors' minds on the need to establish notability within a project which had tolerated far too many articles on subjects which stood not a snowball-in-hell's chance of meeting the guidelines. You are, I'm afraid, making the same mistake that I have seen others make, by shooting the messenger here. The problem is that none of the articles I have viewed in Category:Middle-earth locations have demonstrate the notability of the subject. It may be uncomfortable for some people to have that fact drawn to their attention, but {{primarysurces}} is pretty clear in what it means. I'd be grateful if you would desist from sniping because I assume that people could read what it said without me writing an accompanying essay at each article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See comments and references establishing notability under similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda nomination above. --CBD 10:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to recreate the appendices to LotR (and similar works). If there are reliable independent sources making (some of these) locations notable, the article (or an article on these few locations) can be kept. Since these are truly minor locations, I doubt it though. Fram 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Does each location have to independently satisfy the notability criteria? That would seem to argue against any "minor..." articles at all. In general, these articles seem to act as extensive footnotes and appendical or glossary material. If a place is mentioned in a primary article, this list explains what is being mentioned, and is preferable to having the same footnote in 3 or 4 different articles. Carcharoth 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what I intended. It would surprise me if many of these locations were mentioned in other articles though (I would suppose that in that case we have too edxtensive plot summaries), making their value as background on Wikipedia useless. Looking e.g. at Aelin-Uial, it is used in three lists and only one article[17], where it isn't really needed for the article to be clear. I suppose that most items in this list will get similar results. The last item in the list, Woods of Nuath, gives only the three lists[18]. If we would remove all those items from the list, nothing much would be left (perhaps the three lists on AfD can then be merged into one?), only marginally more important things like Estolad[19]. These items just don't play any crucial role in the stories, or in the critical commentaries on them. Fram 14:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a fair point. Sometimes though, it is easier to have redirects to a list in place to avoid people recreating stubs. And the linguistic information alone is enough, in my opinion, to make it marginally encyclopedic. The linking from other articles can probably be expanded slightly as other articles are improved, but not to a great extent. As you say, we need to avoid excessive plot summaries. Carcharoth 14:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that most of these places don't have much in the way of secondary sources, beyond mentions in Tolkien atlases, guides etc, and Christopher Tolkien's writings, and so perhaps don't meet the letter of WP:FICT. However, WP:FICT is stomped on by hundreds of thousands of 100% in-universe fiction articles, most of which are from far less notable sources, so I'm wondering why start with these? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Espresso Addict (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick answer: because this was what what I stumbled on. As to the others, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources" on the "Arda" AfD (see above)... I think an article to emulate is Land of Oz. The problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the works of Tolkein are extraordinarily notable, they are also full of endless NN place, characters, items. Wikipedia is not the place to creat a massive Tolkein encyclopedia.Ridernyc 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--proper treatment, repeal WP:FICTION, we aren't a paper venue, and many people check here first or second for information. // FrankB 05:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully adequate sourcing for a very notable fictional location. Some authors do warrant this degree of detail--this is core material on Wikipedia.DGG (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. jonathon 04:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. —Mirlen 12:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Lack of reliable seconary sources suggests these fictional locations have no notability outside their primary source. --Gavin Collins 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As DGG said, "The individual items in an article do not have to meet the standard of notability. That is exactly why we have this type of article on minor fictional topics where the fictional work is important enough to warrant it.". Carcharoth 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of brevity (as I have elaborated elsewhere), keep per CBD. --Iamunknown 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have discussed this above and elsewhere, and, for those reasons, keep but do lots more work to improve the article. Carcharoth 14:50, 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, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor places in Middle-earth[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only Tolkein's own works and the editions thereof created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with {{nn}} and {{primarysources}}. Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And see also the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So far as I can see, none of those works are cited as references to this article (there is a mention of "History of Galadriel and Celeborn", but on a v quick search I can't find any trace of that publication). In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them {{in-universe}} and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- {{in-universe}} might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See comments and references establishing notability under similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda nomination above. --CBD 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no need to recreate the appendices to LotR (and similar works). If there are reliable independent sources making (some of these) locations notable, the article (or an article on these few locations) can be kept. Since these are truly minor locations, I doubt it though. Fram 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that most of these places don't have much in the way of secondary sources, beyond mentions in Tolkien atlases, guides etc, and Christopher Tolkien's writings, and so perhaps don't meet the letter of WP:FICT. However, WP:FICT is stomped on by hundreds of thousands of 100% in-universe fiction articles, most of which are from far less notable sources, so I'm wondering why start with these? Espresso Addict 15:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources" on the "Arda" AfD (see above)... I think an article to emulate is Land of Oz. The problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the works of Tolkein are extraordinarily notable, they are also full of endless NN place, characters, items. Wikipedia is not the place to creat a massive Tolkein encyclopedia.Ridernyc 18:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "minor" does not mean "OK to delete". Artw 19:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:N. The individual items in an article do not have to meet the standard of notability. That is exactly why we have this type of article on manor fictional topics where the fictional work is important enough to warrant it. Some instances might be borderline, but surely not this one. DGG (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--proper treatment, repeal WP:FICTION, we aren't a paper venue, and many people check here first or second for information. // FrankB 05:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD. —Mirlen 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CBD jonathon 04:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: very useful information, which Wikipedia keeps more accessible than otherwise! 85.227.226.243 08:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fram and the nominator. See also: WP:USEFUL. Burntsauce 20:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Lack of reliable seconary sources suggests these fictional locations have no notability outside their primary source. --Gavin Collins 11:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As DGG said, "The individual items in an article do not have to meet the standard of notability. That is exactly why we have this type of article on minor fictional topics where the fictional work is important enough to warrant it.". Carcharoth 11:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gavin is right, that sounds like an excellent excuse to keep any and all fiction cruft. We're not a repository for that sort of information, nor should we be. Burntsauce 15:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - How about stuff from Tolkien Studies and A Bibliography of Scholarly Studies of J. R. R. Tolkien and His Works? Would that be more acceptable than fiction cruft? Carcharoth 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have discussed this above and elsewhere, and, for those reasons, keep but do lots more work to improve the article. Carcharoth 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondor[edit]

Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites no references at all, although it implicitly cites Tolkein's own works, so I had tagged the article with {{nn}} and {{primarysources}}. Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works, so not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment C. Tolkien isn't just an editor, as the History of Middle-earth books all contain much commentary on the textual history of the writings he's editing and the evolution of his father's fictional world. Uthanc 08:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Those works are not cited as refs for this article. Do they actually contain non-trivial commentary on the significance of Gondor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as do the notes in Unfinished Tales. - jc37 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, per WP:NOTE, "multiple sources are generally preferred" and the test is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). A compendium by the author's son and posthumous editor does not seem to me to be a remotely independent source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gondor, not notable? Seriously? [20] [21] If nothing else, the comparaison between Mordor, Gondor, and Rohiran and pre-WWII France, Britain and Nazi Germany is one of the mainstay in the debate about what Tolkien wanted to say about his times, if anything. That the article is written from an in-universe perspective is a problem, but not for deletion. Is there a template for "{{this-article-is-written-from-an-in-universe-perspective-and-therefore-not-encyclopedic}}? If there isn't, there should be.--victor falk 08:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To establish notability, the article needs references to non-trivial coverage in independent sources, not assertions or google searches which throw up lists of Tolkein's own books. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A large part of The Lord of the Rings is set in this country, much like the Death Star, Coruscant, and Tatooine in the Star Wars films. It's a major, not "minor place in Middle-earth". Off the top of my head, I can say that Gondor was originally "Ond" (from The Return of the Shadow), and it was modeled on Byzantium (from The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien). The Gondorians are above other humans due in part to divine blessings which brought longevity and wisdom, but also because they are scholars (contrasted with the people of Rohan who are "unlearned".) They're descendants of the people of Atlantis, which Tolkien calls Númenór. If one were to find these statements in, say, The Atlas of Middle-earth, not written by any Tolkien, would this be accepted? This is what you're looking for, right? Uthanc 08:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The Atlas may well help verify points of fact, but the fact that place is mentioned in an atlas does not seem to me a point of "non-trivial" coverage. The other points you mention help to explain the interpretation of the places, but the decision on whether to keep the article rests not on interpretation of he stories, but on notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major location in a major, classic, fantasy trilogy. This is not some minor location, it is the scene for a large part of Return of the King. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Assertion is not proof of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep This seems to be a troll :) See Tolkien research if you need pointers to secondary sources. Colonel Warden 09:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF please. If you have sources, add them to the article so that they an be assessed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on this and the rest of BrownHairedGirl's AfDs. They are grossly premature. The correct course of action should have been to tag them {{in-universe}} and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. This would be true even if the idea wasn't laughable that Gondor, a major setting in a major work of literature, is "non-notable". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find the idea laughable, then I'm sure you'll have no problem producing the references which establish notability. {{in-universe}} might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I addressed this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Beleriand -- and incidentally, you could have saved a lot of repetition all around by consolidating at least the "minor places" nominations into one discussion. I'll say it again though -- that you didn't bother to exercise the minimal courtesy of explaining your reason for placing the nn tag -- in this case clearly inappropriate on its face -- is the reason it was summarily removed. If you want to know why people think you're trolling, that's why. You have acted like a troll even if that was not your intention. I don't say that as a personal attack, but by way of explaining the reactions you're likely to get. All these articles are supported by a large and active WikiProject, which I guarantee you will not react very kindly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I expected a strong reaction, because I know that Tolkien has many dedicated fans; I would suggest that's one of the reasons why there are so many unreferenced articles with neither assertion nor evidence of notability, because aficionados of a particular subject tend to assume that its notability is axiomatic. That's life, but a cacophony of heated reactions is not relevant either way to the applicability of policies and guidelines.
You're right that I didn't explain my reasons for attaching the {{nn}} and {{primarysources}} tags, because those tags are intended to be self-explanatory through their links to the relevant guidelines. If the editors active in this area are unfamiliar with the guidelines, it would be more productive for them to familiarise themselves with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION, WP:OR, etc rather than to characterise people as trolls for trying to uphold the policies and guidelines. Frankly, if someone asserting the need for independent sources to establish notability is perceived as a troll by members of a particular wikiproject, then that wikiproject needs to re-examine its culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to defend the troll comment, but please don't turn this into an examination of the WikiProject. That discussion should take place first at the talk page. As I said below, I understand that you are shocked at some of the comments you have received, but please don't respond just to those comments. If we all keep calm, I'm sure we can reach agreement on what is needed here. Many of the editors here are familiar with WP:NOTE, WP:FICTION and WP:OR. Many are not members of the WikiProject (some are active editors of the articles without being members of the project). I count three members of the WikiProject and one active editor. I assume the rest are AfD regulars. Carcharoth 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Responding to BrownHairedGirl: to be fair, some subjects (not this one) do need more than 7 days to track down sources that imply notability, so "7 days should be enough time" is not always a valid argument, regardless of the amount of notability people are claiming. I am sure that this article can be adequately referenced, but the other three AfDs (minor places in) will probably need more time to discuss whether the whole strategy of merging minor locations is viable and how best to do the merging (which is in itself a long-term project as you've found out at the WikiProject talk page). Would you consider withdrawing those other three AfDs as a gesture of good faith, and to allow people to concentrate their efforts on this article? The minor places articles can then be debated at the WikiProject talk page. Does that seem reasonable? Carcharoth 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no desire to be disruptive, but so far I am disappointed to see so many people (including, I think ME project members) claiming that the work of Tolkein's son and literary executor is evidence of notability (he clearly fails the independence test). As noted at the project's talk page, it seems to me that the project's current guidelines could unintentionally mislead editors about the importance of demonstrating notability. If there is a consensus amongst members of that project to update their guidelines to emphasise notability, stressing the need for non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources, then there would be no need for the deadlines set by AfD ... but so far I see no sign of that.
      If the project can agree to start that work of recasting the guidelines in that direction, and to stop claiming that CT's work is evidence of notability, then I would be ready to withdraw. I don't expect to be online much before monday, but maybe someone would like to send me an email if that condition has been met. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Monday? Oh. I was misled by your reference above to "7 days". I repeated that number, though I should have remembered AfDs are 5 days. I'm away this weekend. Possibly others will work on the article before I get to it, but I would like to have a few days from Monday to work on it. See, this is why discussing things on the talk page to see if you can find someone willing to do the work is better than dragging things to AfD. Getting the balance right between demanding that problems be fixed now, and people promising to improve the article and not doing so (I've been guilty of that in the past) is difficult. What do you suggest should be done? All the articles need work, but I don't have time to work on all four. The project guidelines do need updating, but can we please discuss that over there, rather than here? Carcharoth 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        An Afd runs for 7 days, which was why I spoke of 7 days to find the refs. Monday is relevant only as the point when I expect to be online again. By all means discuss things at the wikiproject; as above, I will withdraw if the project agrees to start work on updating its guidelines and to start trying to enforce the notability guidelines itself rather than complaining when outsiders raise the point. I don't expect even that updating of guidelines to be complete any time soon, but I will not withdraw the AfD if the project's response to nn/primarysources tags is still to consider them as disruptive or as trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:AFD says "Articles listed here are debated for up to five days". I've looked through the AfD again and the troll comment (with a smiley) came from Colonel Warden, who is not a member of the WikiProject. TCC (the active editor I was referring to) only explained to you why your actions could (even jokingly) have seemed like trolling. Could you please apologise for saying that "the project's response to nn/primarysources tags is still to consider them as [...] trolling", and again, I ask you to focus on the article, not the WikiProject. Carcharoth 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The troll comment I was referring to was the one from TCC, without a smiley, and my comment was prefixed with an "if". But this is getting silly: you asked me to consider withdrawing so that the wikiproject can discuss the sitaution. That's a reasonable suggestion, but it's also quite reasonable of me to respond that so far I don't see the evidence that the project is ready or willing to do take the issues board. If you prefer to revert to discussing the article, that's fine too; the situation remains that it currently no evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Csernica said "You have acted like a troll even if that was not your intention. I don't say that as a personal attack..." How much clearer can that be? It's not a personal attack. If you want to point out your "if", I'll point out your "still". But you are right, this is getting silly. I will leave this until Monday, when I will endeavour to satisfy your request for independent sources commenting on this topic. Carcharoth 14:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't play straw man games: I did not accuse anyone of making a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        For the record, I never said you had accused anyone of making a personal attack. I was commenting on Csernica's comment on whether his comment was a personal attack. Carcharoth 19:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Can I comment on that? TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Probably best not to. Recursion probably doesn't trump bad feelings, and things are getting a bit heated on other pages. I hope I've managed to demonstrate some notability and calm things down a bit. Short story is at User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#Mass tagging (which was followed by mass reversions by IronGargoyle and then by mass reverting by BrownHairedGirl of the reversions - sigh). My follow-up is at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#A start. I guess I'll find out on Sunday (or Monday) whether this has helped or not. Carcharoth 00:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This should never have been nominated for deletion. It's a very notable subject!

DarthSidious 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

Comment - one other comment. BrownHairedGirl relied on Wikipedia's article on Christopher Tolkien to describe his work. Relying on Wikipedia articles is always a risky business, and it seems that either the article gave the wrong impression, or is missing key information. BrownHairedGirl quotes the following "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims" - I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Christopher Tolkien does make interpretive and analytical claims. His role in writing The History of Middle-earth is both literary executor, literary scholar, editor and a son writing about his father's works. Sometimes these roles do conflict, but that does not mean that he should be discarded as a secondary source - rather it means that editors of Wikipedia articles need to take care when referencing him. Carcharoth 10:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. As has been discussed before, Christopher Tolkien is a Primary AND Secondary source. When he acts as editor and publishes his father's texts that is 'primary source' material. Likewise, when he speaks about the creation of the maps published in The Lord of the Rings, which he himself drew, he is a 'primary source'. However, when he analyzes at great length (more than half the material in most of his books by my estimation) the meanings, origins, intents, et cetera of his father's work he is clearly acting as a 'secondary source'. An argument could be made that he would not be an 'unbiased' secondary source on some questions, e.g. whether his father's works have racist implications, but on a thousand other questions of meaning and interpretation of the work there is no reason to suspect any 'bias' other than that all researchers have for their own theories. --CBD 11:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you really claiming that as the author's son, editor and literary executor he is in any remotely plausible way "independent of the subject" per WP:NOTE? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you really claiming that as the author's son, editor and literary executor we exclude all mention of what he has written? I'm genuinely puzzled here. I think a more reasonable stance would be to agree that references to Christopher Tolkien's work are acceptable, and then to ask for more sources and independent ones over and above that. At the moment, it sounds like you are saying that references to Christopher Tolkien's works are unreliable. Please separate the "reliability" and "independence" arguments. Sources can be reliable without being independent. I understand that you are shocked at some of the comments you have received, but please don't respond just to those comments. If we all keep calm, I'm sure we can reach agreement on what is needed here. Carcharoth 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I am not saying that they are unreliable sources, or that they shouldn't cited. What I am saying is that because they are not independent sources (and in some cases not secondary sources), they are not evidence of notability. Please please please do read WP:FICTION and WP:NOTE; the latter in particular explains the difference between sources for which are acceptable for referencing and sources which establish notability (there are tighter criteria for the latter). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Right. That's a good point, and it is noted. Thanks for that. Cite a page from the books to verify a fact from the book, but cite newspaper coverage of the popularity to verify the notability. Carcharoth 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See comments and references establishing notability under similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda nomination above. --CBD 11:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I usually advocate for the deletion of sub-articles relating to fiction, but Gondor is one of the major settings in one of the major works of fiction of the 20th century, not to mention the blockbuster film. Literary sources independent of the Tolkien family undoubtedly exist that discuss Gondor, and the article editors should be given plenty of opportunity to come up with them. Espresso Addict 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the universe created by Tolkien and a lot of its locations have been the subject of many, many derivative works and even scientific articles. See for example this [22] scientific article where a link is made between ancient Egypt and locations in Middle Earth (including Gondor). --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like the obvious choice. Major location in the most notable work of fantasy fiction of all time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, articles may need cleanup but Gondor is not some minor location. It is discussed as a symbol of mortality in this article in First Things, it is discussed as being based on Ancient Egypt by Miss Navratilova ( :-) ) in a Czech journal[23], and it is the subject of the chapter "Gondor as Schmittian superpower" in "Studies in Law, Politics and Society"[24]. Gondor, as a location and a country (political entity), clearly has been the subject of considerable scholar attention, and is therefor notable. Fram 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Almost every aspect of LotR has been the subject of massive amounts of serious literary, linguistic, and philosophical scholarship; I imagine some serious sources can be found about almost any place in Middle-Earth. Gondor is one of the major locations of the books, and the question of its leadership is a significant plot/theme point. A quick search of Google Scholar and Google Books for Gondor turned up references in a ton of critical analysis works, and I'm sure that spending some time looking over them would turn up even more detailed discussion of Gondor in particular, such as those mentioned above by Fram. Pinball22 13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Gondor is non notable in the context of Middle-earth, then maybe we should consider deleting the article on Brussels or Washington D.C.. Mikael GRizzly 14:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with all above. How is this not notable. Bjewiki (Talk) 15:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not a Tolkien scholar, but a quick Google Scholar search suffices to reveal some (independent, reliable) sources someone with library access to journal databases could check:
- MFS Modern Fiction Studies - Volume 50, Number 4, Winter 2004 - Special Issue: J. R. R. Tokien - Guest Editor: Shaun F. D. Hughes (see [25]); in particular, the essay "Tolkien Worldwide" contains a section for which Google snippet reads: "... anarchist," which recognizes the contradictory elements in Tolkien's work: the hierarchical, patriarchal, and political system of Gondor contrasted to the ... ", which seems very promising.
- N Werber - Geo-and Biopolitics of Middle-earth: A German Reading of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings - New Literary History, 2005 (see [26]) - Ditto: see "... enhanced by the tremendous success of John Ronald Reul Tolkien’s epic ... Their respective realms (pretty Shire, proud Gondor, beautiful Imladris, terrible Mordor ... "
- JA Ford - The White City: The Lord of the Rings as an Early Medieval Myth of the Restoration of the Roman - Tolkien Studies, 2005 (see [27]) - For instance, "... Tolkien endowed Gondor with the unifying cultural characteristics for which Rome was most famous in the Middle Ages, and he underscored the inclusivity of ..."

And so on and so on. --Goochelaar 15:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since CBD points out "Numerous independent sources" on the "Arda" AfD (also see above)... I think an article to emulate is Land of Oz. The problem is adding references instead of finding references. Uthanc 16:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's snowing in Gondor. Didn't even have to muster the Rohirrim. Clarityfiend 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gondor is an imporant place in Lord of the R, and has enough notability on it's own to merit an article.Ridernyc 18:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a serious no-brainer. --Gwern (contribs) 18:35 26 October 2007 (GMT)
keep Sigh... Artw 19:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per BrownHairedGirl. J.R.R.Tolkien is a notable author, but that doesn't make a fictional location within his books worth writing an article about. What next, an article about Narnia? Let me guess, you already have one. Mindraker 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per CBD's excellent reasoning. IronGargoyle 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quite apart from the others, this is so obviously notable as a truly major fictional location that I really wonder at what seems an indiscriminate group of nominations by a respected editor. Perhaps she should withdraw this one--the notability does not depend in the least on anything written by Christopher Tolkien. DGG (talk) 01:22, 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. Neil ☎ 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ME/CVS Vereniging[edit]

Patients' group for chronic fatigue syndrome patients in the Netherlands. Article largely written by Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs), who is on the organisation's board[28] and has been warned in the past on WP:COI. No mention of membership, largely a WP:COATRACK on a much larger issue, namely the exact cause and management of CFS. That issue is already spelled out clearly in the CFS article. For these reasons, I propose delete of this article. JFW | T@lk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of sources, but very few of them are reliable independent sources, and those are to me not enough to establish real notability. The Vereniging has not been shown to be the subject of much attention by the media, and has mainly been mentioned in passing or by sending in a letter. Being heard in a few government decisions is not an indication of notability for Wikipedia, as far as I am concerned. The blatant COI is of course negative, but not in itself a reason for deletion. Fram 08:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, why do you consider national organizatons like CG-Raad, NPCF, ZonMw unreliable? The claim of notability is based on, in addition to media coverage:
  - The fact that major national organizations consider the Vereniging notable;
  - The fact that a scientific journal considers the Vereniging notable;
  - The fact that the Vereniging is innovative and a leader in the field of patient organizations;
  - The fact that it is a participant in the development of the Dutch multidiscilinary guideline (rather than 'being heard').
- Of course this is potentially biased, but a denial of notability should at least address the claim. Guido den Broeder 09:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPCF is a directory. It shows that ME/CSV is considered genuine, not necessarily that it is notable. The ME/CVS Stichting is a member of the CG-Raad, the Vereniging isn't. But they have heard the Vereniging when developing a protocol. I have not found the evidence that the Vereniging is any more involved with ZonMw either. So point 1 is gone, point 2 is based on that letter you get printed as a reply to an article they ran, point 3 is your opinion, and for point 4, all I have found is that they are being heard. In my opinion, the sources in the article don't support the claim that this is a notable group. Fram 10:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a bit further, it appears that the Vereniging was part of an invitational conference by ZonMw on March 20, 2007, and in general ZonMw notes that the patient organisations are involved in the development of the guideline. So this may indicate that your fourth point at least is correct. In my opinion this isn't sufficient as a claim to notability, but other people may disagree. Fram 11:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to follow the link to the 3B Platform. Guido den Broeder 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you might now by now, I have done that before. This is the one where the Vereniging was only heardsee page 93, and complained about that in a letter (see "commentaar op concept..." here[29]). Or was there anything else you wanted to point to? Fram 11:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the main point, that the Vereniging is part of a select group of patient organizations for various disorders that develops common policy on guidelines. Guido den Broeder 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And where on the 3B Platform pages does it say that? It would be very helpful if you provide a link, instead of setting me on a wild goose chase. Fram 11:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right at the top, where it says 'het project' ... Guido den Broeder 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent)If you mean the first link on this page[30], it doesn't mention the Vereniging, and it is this one where the Vereniging complained about only being heard afterwards. If you mean somethign else, link to it. Fram 12:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Right below is the list of the participating organizations. Guido den Broeder 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing new there. These are the organisations that afterwards complained that they were only heard instead of really "developing common policy", just like I said from the beginning. I don' think I'll comment here again, unless something really new appears. Repeating old arguments is a waste of time. Fram 12:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are the organizations that participate in the Platform to develop a common policy. Guido den Broeder 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is now well-sourced and I wouldn't know what more needs to be added to the press attention, recognition by government, key institutions and scientists, memberships, publications, accomplishments, etc., before notability is accepted. Keep in mind that notability is always relative. This is not a football club, so you may not have heard of it, but patients, media, scientists, clinicians, government and institutions in The Netherlands have. Guido den Broeder 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I consider the suggestive comments above a leap of bad faith by JFW. The article has nothing to do with any ongoing discussion elsewhere and existed long before that. I did not recreate it, as JFW claims on my discussion page; that is a blatant lie. Nor has there been a 'warning in the past on WP:COI'. It was speedily deleted somewhat hastily and put back on my request. Subsequently, several users have worked together to establish notability. It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV, and I request to deal with him accordingly. PS: I am not on the board of the Vereniging. Guido den Broeder 08:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note further that the provided reason for deletion (coatrack) is neither specified nor a valid reason for deletion. Guido den Broeder 10:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles are deleted because they are unencyclopedic. Coatrack articles are unencyclopedic. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah. You again. Thanks for adding to the ABF. Guido den Broeder 22:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry; I didn't realize I was assuming any sort of faith, just explaining the basis of deletion policy. Assuming bad faith would be saying something like (to take a recent example): "It seems clear to me that JFW is on a warpath to eliminate all users and articles on ME/CFS that somehow fail to meet his POV." MastCell ^Talk 03:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though coatrack doesn't mean it should be deleted, failing WP:CORP does. I tried looking through the sources (this version), only one seemed to be independent of the organization itself or irrelevant to notability, the 4th in the above version, and it looked like only a single paragraph - pretty trivial. Also, it was in Dutch; though sources are allowed in other languages, and it may be notable on the Dutch wiki, I can't read anything that tells me its notable. Even looking at the sources, there doesn't seem to be any that look like newspapers, news agencies, national magazines, or even any scholarly discussion of how the organization's new guidelines are good or bad, all of which would help it pass WP:CORP. Also, any page that cites the page creator's apparently unpublished (were it publishedit would be a pubmed citation) PhD thesis is extremely worrisome. Also, if the organization's guidelines, criticisms and suggestions for the treatment of ME/CFS are only covered by it's own publications, they themselves do not appear to be notable, and their content should not be covered in detail. Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation given reliable sources. If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way, it will be covered eventually - at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI. WLU 14:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WLU - TexasAndroid 14:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My main reason for viewing the current independent sources as (marginally) sufficient to establish notability is that they show that the Vereniging has already garnered substantial recognition as patient representative, and does seem to fill a niche left by the ME/CVS Stichting. But I would like to see more independent sources providing information on the Vereniging. If a consensus to delete emerges here, I'd like to echo WLU's words: "If what the org is doing is worthwhile and fruitful in some way, it will be covered eventually - at that point, it should be re-created. In fact, it will be re-created, by someone without a COI." Avb 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 15:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article does survive AFD, it should definitely be de-coated so to speak, to leave only the rack. It should also be de-puffed, as currently it is a bit too self-promoting for my tastes. Incidentally, I don't see it as having recognition as a patient representative org, but that may be because I don't read Dutch. The lack of english sources is a huge disadvantage for an english encyclopedia. WLU 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The article is now unbalanced, there are far too many references. Some were added only because the notability was questioned, but don't make the article better. I suggest that someone other than me does this. It is rather weak to keep talking about COI if you're not prepared to help out. Guido den Broeder 19:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implied criticism notwithstanding, none of us are obliged to help out. A lack of contributors is a secondary indication of low notability unfortunately. WLU 22:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is most definitely not a deletion criterion!!! Any more than the opposite is a reason for keep. DGG (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of particular notability, and lack of significant sources. DGG (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was hoping the Dutch article would be more convincing, but it wasn't. If it accomplished anything significant, then it isn't in either article. jonathon 04:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Jonathon, the English article was the same as the Dutch article until recently; nobody on nl:Wikipedia asked for proof of notability. What, in your opinion, would be something significant - can you give an example? Regards, Guido den Broeder 14:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something that didn't look like it was written by or for their PR department would be a start. I cant' give specifics because I still can't tell what this organization could accomplish, other than waste taxpayer money.jonathon 04:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you shouldn't need to. What the association can accomplish is not relevant, only what it has accomplished. By the way, no taxpayer's money is involved. If you think the article is not well written: be bold and edit it. Guido den Broeder 10:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I have moved the edits User:AvB deleted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) Fram 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Since I am pretty capable of the dutch language I am took some time to dive into the matter. It seems pretty clear to me that the ME/CVS Vereniging is notable. It is mentioned in lots of places as one of the patient organizations, delivered a often cited common declaration with the bigger organization CVS Stichting [Common declaration]. I think the article is well written, cited correctly and provides useful information with regards of the topic patient organizations around CVS. I do not see a valid reason to delete this article due to missing notability. I am astonished about the tone of this discussion. If needed I can put the effort of putting some of the links where the CVS vereniging is mentioned into the article. I was not involved into the topic of CVS/ME before this AfD. Neozoon 22:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I can't read dutch, but the organization appears to be mentioned only once, just before the end of the page. Also, the writing quality, and 'usefulness' are not relevant to notability. WLU 22:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have overlooked the logo at the top. This is a press release issued by the three patient organizations together. Regards, Guido den Broeder 10:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, you are correct. But if it's a press release, it has absolutely no worth in asserting notability because it is not an independent, secondary source. WLU 12:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is 2/3 independent. :-) Guido den Broeder 12:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a press release. WLU 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Hello WLU, thanks for your message on my discussion page. I can read dutch and I find the organization appear on all the relevant pages that deal with patient organizations and ME/CVS. I see things in a bigger context. What does Wikipedia loose when this article gets deleted? Will Wikipedia be a better place when this article about an organisation that works for raising attention to the illness of few people with little engery is deleted? The organization is mentioned in Newspaper articles, sends out press releases, has its own printed news magazin that is quoted by others. I started to edit the article and the quotations. Deleting this page just feels wrong :-) Neozoon 01:35, 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Thomas[edit]

Finishing a partial nom. Appears to be a non-notable web site, individual, company, and product -- all in one article. Not quite a speedy candidate, as there's notability (albeit very questionable notability) asserted. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know about non-notable, most of it seems more non-existant. Article is mainly about a blog site, which probably fails WP:WEB. However mostly this appears to be a hoax. Google shows nothing linking teendrop to anyone with the name Tyler Thomas [31] [32]. Searches for several of the other 'companies' this person supposedly owns return nothing of interest; eFriendzs in particluar is a redirect to teendrop, YouPay (both org and net) appears to be nothing more than squatter pages (apparently at one point however, YouPay.net was a site like paypal according to various message board questions regarding the site [33]), and TreyGotIt returns nothing at all. As for the legal claims, well we need a wp:this is abolute crap policy. The tv show, 'Yo'Trey!' doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere as far I can see. Don't know why I bothered, but I also emailed the owners of NiggaSpace.com to confirm whether there is any truth to the claims of a lawsuit. If I get a reply and this Afd is still open, I'll put it in here. A^RendedWinter 07:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 27 unique search results for teendrop (most of which are unrelated) seem to explain why I've never heard of the site before, too. Somehow, I suspect that the claim of "121,000 million accounts" is a little overblown. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from anything else, that's approximately 20 accounts for every person currently living on the planet..... ChrisTheDude 08:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - website is outside the top 100,000 so probable hoax. Addhoc 10:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ugh. Jauerback 15:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Wonder (Kanye West song)[edit]

The article has no references, the song was not even confirmed to be a single thus not notable. Daniil Maslyuk 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's really nothing here I see to merge to the parent article, since everything notable about the song seems to already be there. If it becomes a single, creation may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystal ball article. jonathon 04:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per G-Unit Boss. Doctorfluffy 17:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure). AFD is not cleanup. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child_support[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The material in this article is too narrow in scope for its title and selectively overlaps material from other sites as a pov branch. This article uses the most general related title, “child support” to focus very narrowly on a select group of government enforcement policies in select countries that are only responsible for a very small fraction of support of children in those countries. The material is already covered in separate pages for each country. The select policies and programs are the result of recent radical reforms resulting from the same political movement and philosophy; representing the view that children are only supported as the result of government force. The article emphasizes this pov by in effect defining the general term “child support” (its title) as inclusive only of those select enforcement programs. Merge of material with pages covering the enforcement policies and programs in the select countries was suggested. This article does not have a npov (credible) reason for existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs)

Speedy, strong keep. Bad faith nomination by editor who is angry that the current article does not reflect his special interest and POV, in support of which he has not produced a single legitimate source or reference. Current article is completely sourced and reflects policy on five continents as well as global convention. DanielEng 06:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real American[edit]

Prod deleted by original author. Entrance theme of Hulk Hogan, but isn't notable outside of that. Most of the information is already mentioned in Hogan's article, and this doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nikki311 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 06:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough by itself. Merge anything important into Hulk Hogan, if it's not their already. - DrWarpMind 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge into Hulk Hogan Bjewiki (Talk) 15:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The information is already in Hogan's article and its not notable enough for its own article. --Naha|^(talk) 14:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree outside of Hulk Hogan not many would know about this song. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 19:57, 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 --Haemo 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anacreon Province[edit]

This is a fictional galactic province that Isaac Azimov created. I prod tagged it, 132.205.99.122 removed the prod tag and stated in its edit summary, "major location in a major work of fiction". I did a quick google search, found Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, along with other wikis, predominate. Unsourced, in-universe, plot summary, no information of value to merge anywhere. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Minor detail of the Foundation series (Asimovcruft?). Also delete redirect Anacreon Sector and the other "administrative divisions": Arcturus Sector, Ifni Sector, Langano Sector, Normannic Sector, Sayshell, Sirius Sector, Trantor and Vega (planet). The "major and minor planets featured in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series" should also go. Clarityfiend 06:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence that this meets the secondary source requirements of WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 08:37, 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 No Consensus default to keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Prior AfD was overturned at deletion review and referred back here to have a closer look at the provided sources. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; Let the monkeys have their day! Although they haven't been added to the article yet, there are some reasonable sources listed in the DRV, so whatever I think of the article, this passes WP:N. Masaruemoto 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added those references from the DRV to the article. Masaruemoto 05:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm confused what happened between August and October -- isn't there an unrestored version somewhere? I don't see what I voted on in the last AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (quoting User:Storm_Rider)[reply]
- References:
  - A Toast to Bubbles - LA City Beat, an alternative weekly nespaper that uses Monkey Day as an excuse to create new drinks for their drinking issue
  - Monkey See, Monkey Doo - Denver Westword, an alternative weekly nespaper
  - Monkeying Around with the holidays - Metro Times, an alternative weekly newspaper
  - 2 articles self-promoting Monkey Day from monkeydaycomics.blogspot.com
  - Holiday monkey business - A Canadian alternative paper
  - Financial Times of Deutschland
- I don't see anything significant we can call notable, with the possible exception of the Financial Times, but it's a subscription feed and in German. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are wrong that we can't call "notable" newspapers with circulations of 95,000-100,000 like Los Angeles CityBeat, Westword, and Metro Times. Looking at List_of_alternative_weekly_newspapers it seems pretty clear that there is a strong consensus that these and many other alternative weekly newspapers are considered notable. --Dragonfiend 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's irrelevant if the sources are notable anyway, as long as they are reliable. WP:RS makes no mention of using "notable" sources. Masaruemoto 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is about 2 lines long, and is completely insignificant. So it should be removed. DarthSidious 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
Delete - This is non-notable. The referenced article in Los Angeles City Times is a self-listing forum that anybody can put their event in. Llajwa 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed that source now. There are still four other reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Masaruemoto 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've restored that source. It only lists one event per day, so clearly one of the newspaper's editors is choosing which event to list, so no this newspaper is not a "self-listing forum that anybody can put their event in." --Dragonfiend 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Just to clarify what notability means, in Wikipedia terms, from Wikipedia:Notability; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Significant coverage has been provided, a large article in Detroit Metro Times, another article in Canada's Hour Weekly, and some less significant coverage in Denver's Westword. It's interesting that none of the people saying "not notable" addressed the multiple reliable sources in the article. Masaruemoto 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. There are 1 or 2 published sources thta discuss the monkey day but they completely confirm that monkey day is not "worthy of notice".Worldfamousdirector 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep appears to have somehow attracted some notice. JJL 02:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A topic with multiple reliable sources across multiple years in multiple countries is notable. --Dragonfiend 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The references provided in Monkey Day#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this topic per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The subjective assertion of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion is insufficient to outweigh this presumption. John254 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why are we citing, repeatedly I might add, BLOGSPOT.COM AS A "RELIABLE SOURCE" IN THIS ARTICLE??? Burntsauce 16:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RS "Self-published ... blogs [may] be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The blog of Monkey Day's founder may used as a reliable source since he is a recognized expert on Monkey Day. --Dragonfiend 00:13, 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Team Phantom (Danny Phantom)[edit]

not notable, unsourced Pilotbob 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real world notability. It's just the group of the main characters, and the article even says that they have only used the name ONCE. TJ Spyke 06:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doesn't appear notable even within the show. shoeofdeath 00:21, 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 speedy delete as A7. J Milburn 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geminit[edit]

Not notable Pilotbob 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could go for some speedy deletion Pilotbob 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy. Nothing to suggest that the company is of a reasonably large size, has any media attention, or similar. Google check revealed nothing which suggests encyclopedicity. WP:CORP is missed by a wide margin it seems. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel southern[edit]

Fails WP:BIO Pilotbob 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a promotional/vanity piece. There's a semi-notable actor of the same name which obscures the Google search [34] [35]. Search for Daniel South tract gives little info, and even from here I can't find anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Duja► 09:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. DanielEng 07:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Gavin Collins 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised, I thought after reading the article it wouldn't be hard to find independent sources. I didn't have much look. There is insubstantial coverage in The New York Times and in Christianity Today. I think the best solution is to smerge to American Tract Society, as I found no evidence of any notability for anything else. GRBerry 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - with reluctance, I have to say that the subject seems NN. I am thus doubtful whether this can be kept. However, I have not researched him and must decline to express a definite view. Peterkingiron 23:07, 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 merge into Hogwarts. I will notify the HP project to proceed. Neil ☎ 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Hogwarts[edit]

Crufty, in universe context that cannot be solved by editing, cannot be cited from reliable sources Pilotbob 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, disagree with both "cannot" premises. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fee Fi Foe Fum (I smell the blood of a Wikipedian?). In particular, reliable sources are easy - the Harry Potter books and movies are perfectly good sources, as are various secondary publications. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hogwarts per WP:FICT. Absolutely no notability outside of the HP books. By the way, the Harry Potter Notability WikiProject has already agreed to merge this article into Hogwarts. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then lets close this AfD as a no-concensus keep for now, if it hasn't been merged in a while we can reopen this AfD. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Sgeureka; I tend to trust projects' judgement in these matters. --Gwern (contribs) 19:21 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Delete, we don't need articles about every child's fake universe. Oh, wait, we're in it right now, it's called wikipedia. Mindraker 19:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

Can we try to keep the tone a bit... eh, never mind, wasn't a big deal. Anyway. It bears noting that that's as inaccurate a characterisation as it can possibly be. This is about the best-known fictional setting of this time and of all of history. --Kizor 16:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki If there isn't a wiki4fiction there should be.jonathon 04:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Lack of reliable seconary sources suggests these fictional locations have no notability outside of their fictional setting. --Gavin Collins 11:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by the WikiProject Harry Potter editors sounds good to me.--Alf ^melmac 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect to Hogwarts - There seems to be no real world information of any kind, and no promise of any, so its just a lot of plot summary, and as we already have articles on the books themselves, this is just duplication. Judgesurreal777 03:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. Extremely unlikely anything on this list has received substanstial coverage from secondary sources. Moving the information somewhere else on Wikipedia will do nothing to increase notability. Doctorfluffy 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:25, 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 delete. east.718 at 01:38, 11/4/2007

Shelby Bell[edit]

Fails WP:BIO for porn actresses Pilotbob 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this performer doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO and there's no assertion that would suggest she does. Accounting4Taste 19:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Epbr123 08:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CDO Soccer Club[edit]

Fails notability criteria, local soccer club Pilotbob 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Canuck85 05:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 07:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Sebisthlm 11:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. east.718 at 01:30, 11/4/2007

Sir Guthrie[edit]

Delete I have reservations whether either of these guys were Sir Guthrie, as the normal convention is Sir <given name> nor Sir <surname>. If that is so, this dab is unnecessary Carlossuarez46 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Titles of honor don't belong in article titles, anyway, so this is disambiguating very little. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted by nominator, this isn't even the correct form of address. Choess 13:56, 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 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Rosenow[edit]

I don't see any assertion of notability in this lengthy, unsourced article. I also suspect it's autobiographical (editor's username is an "alter ego" of the subject of the article.) I just don't see him meeting WP:BIO. Pig^man 04:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable radio personality. Canuck85 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cap'n Walker 21:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non=notable and spam. Llajwa 22:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his book is self-published and he fails WP:BIO Karanacs 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seemingly non-notable per WP:BIO, agree with nom's assessment that it's a conflict of interest. Doctorfluffy 07:15, 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 no consensus. east.718 at 01:29, 11/4/2007

AfDs for this article:

Anabukinchan[edit]

This does not meet notability criteria, the old AFD is very old and should be reconsidered. Also sounds like original research with no reliable sources Pilotbob 04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was originally placed at the top of the original 2005 VfD (can be seen here) I am splitting off this nomination onto its own page. -- saberwyn 04:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not notable as an internet meme, but notable as a Japanese advertising character. This was a pretty major campaign, and the fact that it recieved worldwide attention only underscores that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how being a advertising character for a company that itself is not notable enough for inclusion warrants an article here. Pilotbob 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there isn't currently an article for Anabuki that I know of, if someone created one they'd pass WP:CORP by miles and would be in no danger of deletion. See this page for some stats. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 01:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this survives the AfD, a line needs to go into the article explaining the breasts thing. It's a silly simple pun, really, but this is not explained, not in the article, not in the bumbling guesswork of the so-called "explanation of the lyrics" link. TomorrowTime 07:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This is one of those Japanese cultural things that will never be understood elsewhere. jonathon 04:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand it either, but just to delete it because we don't understand it is just pure ostrichness. The interested editors can always edit it for us to appreciate it. Anyways, has the nominator notified the concerned Wikiproject or editors prior to deletion nomination? I think it is just common courtesy to do so.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no secondary sources as evidence of notability. Just because a company employs humour in its advertising campaign does not make it notable; Wikipedia is not a link farm for viral videos.--Gavin Collins 08:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does need third party sources, which are available in Japanese.jonathon 04:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would they be reliable secondary sources? If they just say "This is a funny video", they would be of no value. --Gavin Collins 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable, non-trivial third party publications can be located about this subject. It does not matter if they are in Japanese, English, or another recognizable language. Burntsauce 16:36, 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 close, not an article, but a redirect. In addition, redirects and cheap and this one seems perfectly valid. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesnar[edit]

This is a useless redirect that serves no real purpose. Brock Lesnar has never been known as just Lesnar in his career. As a note: I tried to speedy this, but it got declined. RobJ1981 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; Redirects need to be listed at WP:RFD. Masaruemoto 05:14, 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 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of book publishers in Kerala[edit]

Directory list of non-notable publishers, possibly created just to include some linkspam. Masaruemoto 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory --Richard 07:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a random list. I can't even give the analogies that come to mind for fear of beans.Obina 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOT#DIR. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this list.jonathon 04:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Imam Al Mamun[edit]

Vanity biography of non-notable subject. No reference. Arman ^(Talk) 03:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources. Seems to fall short of standards for military biographies regardless. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : nn-biography. Per WP:N, WP:V. Looks like a vanity biography written by the subject or someone related to him. --Ragib 07:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notablity or even claimed notablity. Could be speedied but no rush. Obina 10:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party citations. Reads like an advertisement. jonathon 04:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable subject, vanity page. Doctorfluffy 06:31, 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 Redirect to Crozet, Virginia. --Haemo 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Henley Middle School[edit]

WP:OUTCOMES#Education reports that the general consensus is that usually only high schools are kept; non-notable middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't care one whit for OUTCOMES, but the school is non-notable. Pity, though; those are nice pictures. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - TexasAndroid 14:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with CRG (above) and think OUTCOMES is a waste of wiki-space. Anyways, this school isn't notable. - Rjd0060 23:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crozet, Virginia per WP:REDIRECT. I agree with CRGreathouse, the pictures are great, so place one of them in a section about education within the Crozet article. See also: WP:OUTCOMES. Burntsauce 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a page for this schools district? I would be in favor of moving it there. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the school's district is red linked. Certainly, a page for the district would be well merited but pending that I have merged it into the locality where I think it makes a nice, informative section. TerriersFan 03:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Twenty Years 10:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Crozet, Virginia. If not possible, delete. Auroranorth (sign) 10:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Crozet, Virginia. I have completed the merge into Crozet, with other schools. Article should now simply be redirected. TerriersFan 02:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect as per TerriersFan (from Merge, above. Merge has been completed). Auroranorth (sign) 02:09, 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 κЄ٤Ϸ. krimpet ⟲ 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unicode characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I know it have been nominated twice in few months but i believe the users who previously voted don't know the full reasons why it should be deleted. I will list here:

It is a reference article, and not a encyclopedian article. It give nothing about meanings, it is just a reference.
It break wikipedia format
The full table is too big to be maintained here (The previous deleted Unicode reference was the biggest wikipedia article ever made, as far as I know)
It was already deleted from wikipedia before, mainly for the above reasons (it was also deleted from wikisource, which is why I salvaged it on wikibooks)
There is already a wikibook set of articles about Unicode reference (you can see it here, it is also linked from the article), and this article can divide the work to maintain it.

SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.

Delete, for the reasons I posted above. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{19:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
Speedy Keep. It is less than a month since the last attempt to delete this article. The nomination indicates that other Wikimedia don't want it. Since the information is so important and useful, this list should be retained to ensure availability while its technical issues are hashed out. Colonel Warden 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Agree with CW. - jc37 08:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have many lists ("reference article"s as the nominator puts it), many of which are excellent and useful; "it breaks wikipedia format", what does that even mean?; if its too big, split it up; I dunno if it was deleted before, but the last two times the AfDs ended a keep; a subject being present on Wikibooks doesn't mean it can also be here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys seen to be forgetting that unicode have about 100,000 characters. If it passes out it can spread into 32 huge pages like this one (number of unicode character reference pages in wikibooks) or stay as it is: a mix between wikipedia and wikibooks articles. Note the article is already asking to be expanded ("This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it", and the current merge problem, asking to merge all specialized Unicode tables in this one). Please note I am not complaining, just argumenting. But remember this warning: It is still a mere fraction of the full extension it can grow (100.000 chars) and it is already the biggest article in wikipedia (If not it is one of the biggest for sure) with a lot people complaining it (in discussion at least, not here for sure :P)SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
Speedy keep. Most print encyclopedias of my knowledge include tables of alphabets for various languages. Not at all surprising that we should have one for electronic alphabets. Repetitive nomination with no really new claims made in this one. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, read my argument above SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
Speedy Keep per reasons above Bjewiki (Talk) 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis of Tlön's arguments about tables of alphabets. Not to mention, *I* find it useful to have here, so I assume others do too. —Quasirandom 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I too find it useful. But I also think it will become a nightmare to maintain the mix wikipedia + wikibooks or import all the articles of Unicode in wikibooks. Why not just leave it in wikibooks and link to there? SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{18:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)}.
Keep Useful article. Mindraker 19:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone else think it's WP:SNOWing? CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tw to Wikibooks Will ^(talk) 15:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per snow, and that it has only been a month since last AFD. Finally, if it is so big, the editors could find a way to split it up. Viperix 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this sort of nomination is abusive. The matter has been thoroughly discussed, and I think we need some sort of a rule that after three keep afds, it can not be brought up again for 6 or 12 months or so. Personally. I would tend to support regarding any attempt at doing this without deletion review as interfering with the operation of wikipedia. DGG (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Splitting it up might be a good idea. Transwiki to wikisource would be a better idea. jonathon 04:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep article and subject are notable. Suggestions for possible reorganization should be made on the article's talk page, not via AfD. Alansohn 05:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect crime[edit]

No relevant references; article is speculative with no verifiable information. Gingerwiki 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Original research and speculation. It's a crime where the criminal doesn't get caught, what else is there to say? Masaruemoto 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The article contains a reference to a BBC documentary on the subject. The reasons provided in the proposal are therefore incorrect. Colonel Warden 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please don't vote "speedy keep" unless you really mean that the nomination was in bad faith or an obvious misunderstanding. It isn't an intensifier. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say what I mean and mean what I say. Since the article contained a reference already to a work of the BBC's science/fact dept, the stated reason for deletion is voided. Colonel Warden 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies; I on the other hand didn't say exactly what I meant. The article does contain a reference. What I was trying to get across is that most of the content of the article is more conversational than encyclopedic. The first sentence is a useful definition, but the rest doesn't say much. Should it be a Wictionary entry?Gingerwiki 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty has been written about this beginning with Leopold and Loeb (which the article doesn't mention, oddly). Certainly it's a major fictional device. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very notable topic. Current reference is already good and many more surely can be found here. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination is... less than intelligent. Mikael GRizzly 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the article as it stands is virtually all original research - the nomination is certainly legitimate. I think there's room for an article here on the idea of "the perfect crime" as a meme or theme in detective fiction and popular culture, and the article cites two sources in that direction, but the current text of the article is a short OR essay or meditation on perfect crimes, not encyclopedic. Llajwa 18:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not even a mystery or murder fan, and I'm still familiar with the idea of the perfect crime and its siblings the locked-room mystery. I could easily imagine looking this up and expecting to find it; it's a disservice to the reader to not include such an article (which considerations convince me this is quite notable). --Gwern (contribs) 19:24 26 October 2007 (GMT)
Keep Article needs more comprehensive treatment, with sources. jonathon 05:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Granted, the article is in shambles right now, but that's certainly no justifiable reason to just eliminate the entire thing. Given the proper work, this could become quite an extensive piece and collection of information. Anthony Hit me up... 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is certainly notable and article simply needs improving via regular editing. Benjiboi 05:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep blah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.107.109 (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Definitely a notable and interesting topic. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:53 31 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. --Tikiwont 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Night in the Dark[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Notability concerns per WP:MUSIC: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." No sourcing provided. Google hits 43 distinct, but I don't find any reliable source to substantiate notability for this bootleg. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Group is notable but that doesn't make an obscure bootleg so. Notability is not inherited. Pig^man 05:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its on the official Celtic Frost web site....look by yourself, and this bootleg is not obscure, In their website they placed only the most important releases (i suppose you know there are hundreds of bootlegs of many bands unregistered)Wayavas1337 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless non trivial secondary sources are referenced to this article before the end of this debate. A1octopus 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy 08:27, 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 not an article, but a redirect, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USAF Histporical Research Agency defines Wings[edit]

This is a mispelt redirect that no-one is likely to search for. It should be deleted as per the previous USAF wing redirect deletion debate. Buckshot06 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. You want redirects for deletion, one door down. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 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 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KRFH[edit]

AfDs for this article:

One-watt student radio station that seems to lack (and for which the article doesn't really assert) notability. An AfD for a nearly identical version was started yesterday, but I'm not sure whether this recreation can be speedied under G4, since the article was speedied then before the discussion got very far. Deor 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate student run radio station that has been in operation for 17 years. It runs side by side with a journalism class at Humboldt State University. There are 55 people currently in the class that have been instructed to add content to this page. This second article was added because the first was taken down despite a {{hangon}} tag being added. This article needs to stay on wikipedia, as its notability will be established in the coming weeks. DO NOT REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRFH610AM (talk • contribs)

Notability has to be established as soon as the article is created. An article can be deleted the same day its created. TJ Spyke 02:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Just adding that, according to the article Carrier current, stations like this one (it's specifically listed in that article) are not licensed by the FCC, and their broadcasts reach a minuscule area. FCC licensing is usually considered one of the major notability hurdles in deciding whether to keep a radio-station article. Deor 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a hosting server for vanity pages as class projects! Delete. Llajwa 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -

Delete, no claim exists that they meet WP:N (and there will probably never be any). Fails WP:V, no sources. meshach 03:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I didn't see the previous version, but this article barely asserts importance (if at all). Masaruemoto 04:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Running for 17 years doesn't make it notable. One of my cupboards is that old and that's not notable either. Likewise under the terms of WP:Crystal we do not tolerate articles concerning things that might prove their notablity at some later date. The subject of any wikipedia article must be notable on the day the article is created. This radio station broadcasts to virtually no-one, doesn't have a national broadcasting license and therefore it simply isn't notable. Salt in the light of recreation. A1octopus 16:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a cat older than this radio station, and could probably yell and be heard as far as its carrier travels, and have certainly sent out CB transmissions which went further. Are there multiple independent reliable sources with substantial coverage of it? Otherwise, as a non-licensed hobby broadcaster it is non-notable. Edison 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Existence does not equate to notable. The show on the college radio station I'm listening to has been on for 21 years with the same host barely qualifies for a paragraph on a disambiguation page. jonathon 05:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt If I'm not mistaken, this is the fourth time this has been created, with some poor excuse for notability each time (it was speedied once under A1 and once under A3). I know people who have created a just-as-powerful radio station in technology class. The article's creator also thinks that claiming "details will be added in the next few weeks" is enough to keep the article. If this is deleted, it will probably be recreated again, hence the salt (though it does qualify for an G4 speedy, how do we know that the person that comes round and tags it will know of the AfD?). NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 21:58, 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 - The raised concerns do not just amount to the current form of the page. Tikiwont 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Clans[edit]

This article is just a massive plot summary of the novel. There is no sourced information to prove its notability. Beyond the many sections of plot summary, there are only two sentences about the novel, none of which assert notability or have sources. Metros 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No chance it will ever satisfy WP:BK (though it does seem to be selling well on amazon.com). Let it stay secret. Clarityfiend 06:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise -Once again I say we have devoted fans revise the page. Rembrant12 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by Metros; lack of reliable secondary sources means this article does indeed fail WP:BK. --Gavin Collins 11:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise -Just becuase someone is not a fan of the novel, and just becuase it hasn't sold on the scale of something like Chronicles of Narnia or Harry Potter does not mean that an article stating that a work of fiction exists should be eliminated simply becuase the page is currently not up the standards expected by Wikipedia. Kitsufox 11:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BK. Doctorfluffy 20:56, 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 Delete. Keep votes - I mean "Revise" votes - look meaty and cite no policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar's Quest[edit]

This article is nothing more than a plot summary. There is nothing in here that asserts its notability. There are no sources at all in the article. Without the massive plot summary and "other" section, there are only 2 sentences about the book. Metros 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable. Llajwa 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revise - I suggest we have the authors revise the page, because I found it extremely usefull. -Rembrant12~not logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.167.108 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Mainly a plot summary and very crufty. Doctorfluffy 05:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated by Metros; lack of reliable secondary sources is not compensated by plot summary. --Gavin Collins 11:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revise Still, we could always edit it. And if you think we should delete it, then you might start deleting the whole seriies!Iceberg2229 17:49, 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. Hut 8.5 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Yockey[edit]

Memorial of a very nice lady. Fails, however, WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Likely notable as a pioneer in women's broadcasting? I can't imagine there were many on-air women broadcasters in 1953 -- am I wrong? Llajwa 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep 1953 is fairly early for on air female TV weather reporter. On that grounds I think notability is granted.Does need more research and sources, though. jonathon 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep i think it passes the notability test... it could certainly be expanded to include more about her accomplisments and explain her popularity. at one point she was courted by nbc for the today show and told them no because she didn't want to move. Randella 02:05, 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 Keep per WP:SNOW. Like the featured article Prostitution in the People's Republic of China this sort of article is clearly encyclopediac - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Mexico[edit]

Totally unencyclopedic, plus possible libel issues. —Animum (e t c.) 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used credible sources materials on the issues surrounding prostitution in mexicoDwanyewest 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is encyclopedic and the article is referenced. The article could be improved but that's an argument for improving it not deleting it. --Richard 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has only just been created. I would give it a chance to develop. Kulokk 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously a valid topic for discussion. hateless 01:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic stub vs. a "how-to", and libel doesn't apply to a country. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncertain where the "libel" issues pop up here. Certainly an issue which has the attention of Mexican politicians, and hence the media. Article is a lot shorter than it ought to be, but is better than nothing (and provides links so that a reader can find out more). Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per much precedence: Category:Prostitution by country. Let it grow and develop before judging. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr). The article is an encyclopedic topic that needs expansion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Marquis Tower[edit]

Proposed project of fleeting notability Richard 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an enterprising guy came up with a great idea, generated some local publicity but ultimately failed to get the financing and the project is dead for now. It never got past the architect's conceptual drawing. This is just a pipe dream right now and a dead one at that. It doesn't warrant an article or else we'll be having an article on every proposal that ever gets media attention. --Richard 01:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with the nominator - if I read the article correctly this thing ain't even gonna be completed. Delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the nominator. The building is not going to be completed now, but the building did receive zoning approvals from the city and county government. And it did go quite past the architectual drawings and that is why I believed that this article warranted to be listed because it was very close to becoming an Indianapolis landmark here. Much like the Fordham Spire in Chicago prior to its becoming the Chicago Spire after new financing. Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it went further than I thought. Nonetheless, this blog entry from the Indianapolis Business Journal suggests that the project is dead because "Jaron Garrett couldn’t raise enough money to exercise contracts on the run-down properties he had hoped to redevelop. His contracts have expired and the buildings are back on the market for sale." The blog entry continues, "Garrett said today that he’s still interested in the site northwest of Washington and Pennsylvania streets, and he holds out hope he can find enough investor capital to build the proposed 25-story tower." Well, you have to be an incurable optimist to be a real estate developer and Garrett fits the mold. The question is whether Wikipedia should document such speculative and quixotic projects like this. Or, as I would suggest, if Wikipedia should wait until projects are further along (e.g. actually have broken ground and started construction) before creating an article on it. The obvious counter-argument to this would be projects such as the Rebuilding of the World Trade Center. However, this project is not the World Trade Center site. --Richard 01:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This project, though proposed but not completed just like the The Grollo Tower or the 7 South Dearborn in Chicago or even the Tatlin Tower. This proposed project has architectural significance to the city of Indianapolis as it challanged many of the conservative structures that both stand today or have ever been proposed in a city which is greatly and nationally known for its conservatism. This is one of the first architectural designs of such complexity and contemporary thought ever presented and approved in our city.67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The 7 South Dearborn and Tatlin Tower articles suggest that it is legitimate to have articles on proposed but never constructed buildings. However, the question here is whether this proposed project is notable. It had a fleeting notability within a limited geographical area (i.e. Indianapolis). If you were to go to Chicago, would this project be notable there? Was it reported on by any Chicago media outlets? And that's just to determine regional notability. At the end of the day, would anybody outside Indianapolis know The Marquis Tower from a hole in the ground? --Richard 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a failed development project of only local interest it is not notable. Llajwa 18:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Unless major improvements to the article are made. The effect it had on local government, law, and business can probably be pulled from reliable secondary sources like local newspapers - albeit "local", it will set precedence to future buildings in the same area. If the consensus of such hypothesis by local people can be verified, then I'd say keep it. -- Emana 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for unbuilt structures there needs to be a greater degree of notability than an announcement. --Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete Crystal Ball. jonathon 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL, likely to never even be completed. Doctorfluffy 06:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not crystal if it's notable now. An uncompleted plan is not inherently non-notable. Also, the regional / global interest concern is misplaced. We cover plenty of things that are of interest only for people interested in the subject matter. Nobody is interested in all 2 million articles we have here. Just follow the usual notability criteria. This one looks marginal to me, could go either way. Not enough sourcing yet, so if that's all there is it's non-notable. Wikidemo 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up Comment Here's what I think the relevant section is from WP:N
- Notability is not temporary
- Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events.^[1] In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability. Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest.
- Topics that did not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet the notability guidelines as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
- --Richard 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for now - Nominating an Article on the same day as it is created leaves NO room for the article to improve. Sources are needed, but I am sure, we can assume good faith in that they will be forthcomming as soon as possible on this, quite possibly, encyclopedic topic. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand the sentiment about "nominating articles on the same day as it is created". I had an article that I created nominated for deletion an hour after I created it so I understand your point. However, the fact of the matter is that an AFD should focus not just on the current state of the article but its future potential as well. In the case of this article, I believe it already contains just about all that can be written about the topic unless the project is resuscitated and goes forward. As proof of this, consider that the article has improved very little since it was nominated 6 days ago. More sources have been added but the real question is... does this topic have more than fleeting notability?
- What does "quite possibly encyclopedic" mean? What makes it so?
- --Richard 21:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - A purposfully ambigious statement. Something along the lines of your nomination statement of 'fleeting notability'. (Notability is not temporary) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you misunderstand "fleeting notability" and "notability is not temporary". WP:N asserts that WikiNews is a better location for topics which have short-term notability and that Wikipedia is for articles with "long-term notability". This entire AFD discussion should be about whether or not the Marquis Tower has "long-term notability" or if its notability is "fleeting". --Richard 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 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 speedy delete CSD G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Eazy-E, which was even more objective than this article. -- Samir 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Eazy-E[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lil' Eazy-E

Procedural nom: I've declined a {{db-bio}} on it as there seems to be a legitimate assertion of notability - however it doesn't seem salvageable at present. It's also hopelessly non-neutral and I can't see a way to clean the bias out of it without reducing it to a sub-stub. — iridescent 00:40, 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. Not salted. GDonato (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Classical Dance Conservatory USA/ Ekaterina Dance Studio[edit]

Non notable. The related Russian Classical Dance Education at The Ekaterina Dance Studio has been speedily deleted twice, the first time as an advert, which this version doesn't appear to be. Still fails WP:N. Crazysuit 00:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to notability and already being speedy deleted twice. This article is also written like an ad. STORMTRACKER 94 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sources. jonathon 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormtracker. jj137 (Talk) 17:25, 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. east.718 at 01:26, 11/4/2007

Tagish Elvis Presley[edit]

Non notable Elvis impersonator whose only claim to "fame" is receiving 40 votes when he ran for leadership of the Yukon Liberal Party, and the only reason that was even news was so they could have a joke headline ("'Hound dogs' didn't vote for Elvis"). In other words, not notable. Crazysuit 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete, fails WP:N. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability policy. STORMTRACKER 94 19:31, 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.

^ See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.

[1] See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; #5 News reports.

[1]