Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

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 No consensus to delete. Default to keepPeaceNT 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian Wikipedia[edit]

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

procedural nomination Nominated for WP:PROD-deletion, but had previously been considered at AFD as part of a mass nomination (see 2007-02-22 AFD). PROD nominator states: "A good faith effort to find sources has failed to find significant or sufficient reliable sources to comply with notability and/or verifiability requirements." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 00:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. Being a Wikipedia edition is not an inherent claim to notability. The Kashubian edition seems to have few, if any, reliable, independent sources discussing it. After deletion, consider redirecting to Wikipedia to avoid creating redlinks. --Metropolitan90 05:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would consider this meta data for an encyclopedia (like discussion pages are for articles). If it really not notable maybe you can put a paragraph explaining that in the article, so we can delete this encyclopedia. It does have over a thousand articles which make it larger than other encyclopedias. --MarsRover 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I understand. I don't want the Kashubian Wikipedia to go out of existence. I just want us to delete the article about it from the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 17:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Mars rover. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over a thousand entries. It's worthy. Axl 21:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia. 132.205.44.5 21:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footboarding[edit]

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

Not too sure about this one.. checking with you guys Domthedude001 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a lot of research on this and the contents of this article are some of the facts I have found. Do some research and you will be surprised how common this topic is. Of course, you are welcome to edit the article as you see fit. AlienHook 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alienhook, could you list your sources at the foot of the article please? --Malcolmxl5 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: User:Domthedude001, are you nominating because you beleive article is a hoax? Tiptoety 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • No, I just don't think it is notable enough for an article-- if you added pictures and more references.. I would change my mind. -Domthedude001 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unsure what the nom is, have done some research and have found sources: [1], and [2]. Suggest cite references in text.- Tiptoety 05:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the two sources provided by Tiptoety are referring to the same thing. I am also not sure if this is a notable concept, I cannot find any reliable sources in which footboarding is covered. --Kudret abiTalk 06:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no reliable sources suggesting notability. Pete.Hurd 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete only references I could find appear to be parody home-movies. No reliable sources indicating this is a notable concept - or even real. -- SiobhanHansa 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability established. –Henning Makholm 16:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violating WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Bearian'sBooties 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mockingbird[edit]

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

This article is a Original Research synthesis of one book which poses the term Mockingbird, and actual historic events where the CIA covertly sponsored organization like Radio Free Europe. These latter events are never described in terms of "Operation Mockingbird," and thus, no such article should exist. Central_Intelligence_Agency#Cultural_activities already mentions these activities briefly, links to the Radio Free Europe and Forum World Features articles could be added there. Intangible2.0 23:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. A Google search for one reference in the article, Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation by Mary Louise, gives a top hit to prison planet, a well-known conspiracy site. I cannot find the origins of the article though. Intangible2.0 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Google search for "Operation Mockingbird" CIA yields over 20,000 hits. Gwen Gale 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Search engine tests rarely prove anything about notability. I have yet to find a reliable source on the subject. Intangible2.0 23:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said a Google search demonstrates anything. Gwen Gale 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is it relevant that the book is mentioned on a well-known conspiracy site? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to appear at reliable sites. Intangible2.0 00:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Meyer book or the Thomas book? If anything, they have many more citations. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the Meyer book, nor the Thomas book affirm the notability of Operation Mockingbird. Basically what happens here is that a marginal source terms the article, which then gets constructed based on a OR synthesis of sources which are reliable. Intangible2.0 14:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's relevant because if a google search produces just a single mention at a loony conspiracy site it tends to indicate why this rag bag of conspiracy cruft is not notable. Nick mallory 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What google search only produces just a single mention? Can you provide a link please? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of two word, single result searches from google can be found at www.googlewhack.com. They report over 612,000. --Sully343 (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence of this? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter who the nominating editor is, only WP policy has any sway. Gwen Gale 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (under 2i, "obviously frivolous nominations" also possibly 2iv, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion") For starters, if Nazi UFOs, an article of utter codswallop, gets an article on this public wiki, then this should too. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about citations, verifiable sources (WP:V) and WP:WEIGHT. The assertions themselves, true or not, are clearly notable and verifiable. However, assertions which are not verifiable in a published source may be removed. Moreover, spanned citations of more widely notable and published CIA activities shouldn't be conflated into the article, that's original research and can be rm'd. Editors with concerns about WP:NPOV are more than welcome to provide published criticism of assertions contained in the article according to WP:Reliable Sources. Gwen Gale 13:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading the article on WP:SEWAGE and WP:WAX. Nazi UFOs has not been up for a recent AFD. Though I follow the rest of your arguments. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, but my sloppily made point was, the truth of the assertion doesn't mean a wit, it's whether the assertion is published in a verifiable secondary source. Nazi UFOs hasn't been up for AfD because as wacky as the topic is, the wacky assertions are verifiable as having been made (oh and it was on my mind because I'd stumbled across it and done some cleanup on it earlier today, is all). So, if a reader hears about this flavour of "UFO" (a misnomer in itself but whatever) on TV or what have you, we have the article, which clearly presents the topic as a fiction. Dunno if Operation Mockingbird is fiction or not, doesn't matter, all we need do as editors is include verifiable, published assertions on both takes. Cheers! Gwen Gale 14:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Having now looked thoroughly at the text and sources of this article, while I agree it may contain some original research and cite spanning, over all I think the article cites more than sufficient sources to demonstrate not only a notable assertion of OM's existence, but support for assertions OM was indeed a US government operation as generally described. The article needs a lot of work though. Gwen Gale 23:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I now think this should be speedy kept. Gwen Gale 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see my above comments. Remove the original research per arguments made by Gale. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Clearly a bad nomination. This is sourced, is not a "conspiracy theory," but rather an actual CIA operation. The fact that this operation was exposed in a government report suffices for notability. This clearly is real and I am certain that the CIA and the rest of the government don't want people to know about it. However, something does not become non-notable simply because it is potentially damaging to a government agency. Life, Liberty, Property 17:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of which of the criteria for speedy keep are you referring? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bad nomination. The quality of the article may be sub par, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jebba 18:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research and conspiracy theory, delete unless reliable source can be provide. Lectert 04:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep It's implausible that such a program doesn't exist. Observe the comments by former CBS news reader Dan Rather than the government helped write the news in the case of Abu Ghraib. User:Xwagner 15:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Life, Liberty, Property as well sourced and notable.--JForget 22:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't even believe someone would suggest this for deletion. Read history thoroughly, please. That goes for everyone here. We need scholars, not dogmatic skeptics. I am incredulous that just because an article from prisonplanet is in the top results at google for the query at hand, that this enough for someone to want to delete. How lazy can you be. For "reliable sources," start with the Church Committee investigation. Carl Bernstein even reported on it: [3]. Go to Google books if you don't trust websites, or can't manage a trip to the library. The only thing in doubt is the program's official name. That the CIA instituted an official program to infiltrate and influence the media is without question. The common appellation - for lack of an agency fess-up - is Mockingbird. XDev 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That someone would suggest this article for deletion is stunning. It is not the article that is worthy of ridicule--those who would deny this verifiable fact of American history are worthy of ridicule. —Bots24601 9:09 PM PDT
  • Keep This article may need improvement, but deleting it outright is not acceptable. Sukiari 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The basic information as far as my research is very accurate. "Conspiracy theory" is the term used by people who wish not to deal with information that is contradictory to their beliefs. Instead of labeling, do a little research, unless you wish this article be removed in order to kill the truth. Maybe you don't want others to question what is going on or begin to think for themselves? Hum. Just maybe.Goalsmiths 04:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is well referenced and belongs here. I can imagine that the only people who would want this removed are CIA themselves, since it is incriminating but none the less true, well referenced and well documented. Iamchrisryan 07:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Sourced and notable. Another Four Plasmids 09:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Deletion of this truth-based, verifiable, sourced article is unacceptable. 74.243.0.146 14:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong comment. This article's problems exceed what an AFD consensus can handle. Of the two most important sources, Katherine the Great is an obscure fringe book by an author of no note, and the Bernstein piece does not say what it is cited to say. An hour-long attempt to get to the bottom doesn't give me any idea whether the material is true or not, strange and utterly unacceptable for a Wikipedia article that makes such broad claims about important subjects. The overall thrust is not mainstream, even if built on bits and pieces of reality. It goes well beyond this article - many articles it links to have poorly sourced "Operation Mockingbird" material inserted by the same editors. No way can a consensus deletion vote here answer the question. Many voting to keep are Wikipedia conspiracy buffs. This needs arbitration or some formal fact-checking process. If we let it stand we risk spreading embarrassing misinformation about a very important subject. That CIA conducts covert propaganda operations is not in question; whether it happened this way or was called Operation Mockingbird is. Wikidemo 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am appalled that anyone would consider deleting this article. Because it casts a very negative light upon US intelligence agencies' PAST covert operations within a democracy, I feel that deletion would violate the spirit of wikis in general and encourage the CURRENT tendency of certain elements of the US government to attempt to control the mainstream news. I am always in favor of re-investigation of articles like this in order to make them as error-free as possible, but this call for deletion by people whose political stances lead them to believe that they are protecting the CIA--or us--is just plain wrong. And that is what I believe is going on here. The "danger of misinformation" in this case seems to me to be from these would-be censors and not from the article. *edit* to add signature: posted by TizMeToo on 7 October, 2007
  • Strong Keep The reality of projects such as Mockingbird is unquestionable. There's too much proof (both on the net and off) to even consider it's veracity. Even if parts of this article are misinformed, removal of the entire article only further proliferates the type of secretism that has caused projects such as this to continue in both the past and the present. Correct the article if you must. Remove it at the cost of continued concealment of fascist exploitation. Brighid Moon 18:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Some people are politically opposed to the availability of this information, which is clearly the reason for the deletion comments. Only spoiled little children are unable to accept the reality of their mistakes; adults admit that while the U.S. is the best place in the world, we have done things we shouldn't, and trying to bury these things is the way of a pitiful coward who can't face reality and would rather just keep mindlessly waving a flag than think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.192.58 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced article about important event.--Bedivere 19:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Double posted by myself, I didnt realise the article was up already, due to a significant error in its name,

The DVD "Back to Basics: Live Concert DVD" has now been edited from "Live in Australia" to reflect the currently To-Be-Determined name and DVD Show.

Sorry for any problems.

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

The result was Delete. I realise that a straight count of "votes" would not yield the usual supermajority, the delete arguments are significantly more convincing and the keeps are more along the lines of "it's OK", "it's harmless", or "it just needs to be cleaned up". More or less indiscriminate too. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional applications of real materials[edit]

  Note to closing admin

Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:

Fictional applications of real materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Entirely original research (from primary sources) that attempts to catalogue every fictional application of a real materal. Merge any relevant information into the pertinent articles, but we shouldn't be a repository for comic book/sci-fi trivia.

  • Note - the above description is inaccurate, I believe. This is not for *any* use in fiction, which would indeed be unmanageable. It is only uses where a material has some different property than it does in real life. LouScheffer 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 23:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is a list of "primary sources" any different than any other WP:LIST? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 00:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - My intent was showing that each entry is referenced by the primary source (namely, the work of fiction in which each material is fictionally applied). However, we prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia -- a source that cites the primary source and discusses the subject matter. It's doubtful any of these have such significant real-world relevance that secondary sources will discuss the fictional applications. This is simply trivial. /Blaxthos 16:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment We use primary sources for plot, andb y common sense we can use them for the occurence of obvious objects. In any case, most or these can be sourced from secondary sources--"dilithium" for example is discussed in the books written about Star Trek. So it's sourceable, which is the criterion--not sourced. DGG (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see this as no different than listing fictional characters, which is very common and accepted in Wikipedia. Also, no one is putting in their own fictional uses, it's all used in other fiction and hence not original research. On the third hand, I find the 'Science origin' series pretty useless, since there is no connection at all to real properties. (i.e How could experimenting with Argon make characters more resistant to damage, even in principle?). Most of the others have *some* connection to the real material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LouScheffer (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I think this could be improved by (a) restricting it to fiction in which the normal laws of physics otherwise apply, and perhaps (b) noting the connection with the real element.
  • I modified the article to see what this might look like. Feel free to change/comment/revert... LouScheffer 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a reader of Wikipedia, I personally find it interesting since it ties together elements (pun intended) that are just a small part of each individual story, but show a common thread across all sorts of fiction. LouScheffer 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides consisting of trivia, the article tries to have far too broad of a scope for a list. Eric119 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the scope is too big. After a year or so, there are still a manageable number of entries. If you look at the description, it is not any use in fiction of a real material. It's only when the *use* is fictional, so it's not something the real material can be used for. Can you think of any more examples, offhand? If not, the list is probably fairly close to it's natural size. LouScheffer 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - imagine what this list would look like if someone decided to add every time a doctor administered oxygen on a medical show or every movie with a building made out of brick. Otto4711 13:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the list is not uses in fiction, it's fictional uses. Since oxygen is used in ERs, and bricks in buildings, they should not be included. LouScheffer 02:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto, lol. Weak delete, reason below. – sgeureka t•c 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you are not confusing "uses in fiction" with "fictional uses"?. I think Otto's examples are "uses in fiction", but they are not "fictional uses", since they are normally used for these purposes. LouScheffer 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, but I thought about this again and came up with the following delete-worthy reason: This topic has a major trivia-like quality to it, and there is no (sourced) article accompanying this list that would demonstrate the topic's notability. An alternative is merging this list into all the pages of real elements, but what you'd get is those ugly trivia-like sections (if they don't already exist - see Neutronium#Neutronium in fiction (accidental bad example, this seems to be a made-up material to begin with, but the point remains)). Fact is: Fiction is made up per definition, and what most likely happened is the creator thought up an element with fictional properties and named it like a real element. That's IMHO non-notable "coincidence", and since there are hundreds of fictional universes, this produces crufty lists of non-notable occurences that tell the reader nothing except for "hey, a real element named ### was used in show/comic ####." But I see there are more lists like this (Fictional chemical substances) that suffer the same problem and should IMO be deleted just the same in their current unsourced state. – sgeureka t•c 09:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep In a Wikipedia that is populated by articles about comic book characters, it's good to see an article that shows that exposing yourself to radioactivity will give you cancer rather than superpowers. TV, movies and comic books, which Wikipedians are so fond of, are woefully ignorant of chemistry and physics. You can have your articles about the various forms of kryptonite. Let us have an intelligent "you can't actually do that" article to balance out the kid's room in Wikipedia. Mandsford 15:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We don't keep articles around simply because they're useful. Beyond that, information about radioactivity and cancer should be in articles about radioactive materials, not in a list of fictional applications of real materials. Even if we granted your utility argument your logic is broken -- someone who does not know that a property was fictional would not by default go looking for a list of fictional properties. /Blaxthos 16:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but their friends who have a tighter grasp of reality might... I disagree with the description of this as "comic book/sci fi trivia". This isn't in the same league as, say, "The Justice League". Mandsford 18:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it is a beautifully organized article. All articles can become unwieldly somehow, so just keep it as restrained as possible and continue to add references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cosmetic appearance of an article is completely irrelevant to its encyclopedic merit. Otto4711 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We may prefer secondary sources, but there is no objection to primary ones.--Bedivere 19:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an original research article, but clearly an article who's boundaries are indefinable. If someone used a plastic snake to stop someone bleeding, I guess that would and could be used in this article. Rgds, --Trident13 16:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: True, but the article can (and should be, IMO) improved by requiring the association with a real use. I'd say improve it, not delete it. LouScheffer 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment any subject can be made to look ridiculous by suitable imaginary examples. Examining the actual list, it is limited to a relatively small number of elements and chemical compounds. The use of various constructed objects in fiction is covered elsewhere. DGG (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs more work adding primary and secondary sources but this like this are a good resource and while bloat and trivia needs to be policed that goes for everything here. (Emperor 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment to all the keeps: How can you argue that any of this meets our notability guideline when WP:FICTION clearly states: ...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".? It seems that everyone conveniently overlooks this basic requirement for notability. /Blaxthos 20:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep one more time, you misunderstand. Notability is for the article as a whole. It is the concept that the article represents that Notability must be established for. Notability does not determine the content of an article. The wikipedia manual of style on fiction, clearly states that articles about fiction should be based as much as possible on Primary sources.--Marhawkman 21:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. It says "For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".", but that is for no purpose other than establishing notability. For writing an article on the subject see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). There we find: "The term primary information describes information that can only be taken from primary sources, i.e. the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g. another episode of the same series). Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source." I hope that helps.--Marhawkman 23:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is a particular case of science in science fiction, which has a large number of reputable secondary sources - books, college courses, and so on. (Try "science in science fiction" in google to see many of these.) None of these sources has all the examples here (I'd assume) but the topic would fit into many of them. At least some of them discuss some of the items here, so I think that makes the *topic* notable, if not the individual entries. LouScheffer 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the notability rules do not directly determine the content of an article. Thus individual "entries" in an article do not need to be notable.--Marhawkman 23:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Post hoc ergo propter hoc -- LouScheffer correctly states that science in science fiction is both notable and easily referenced. However, this does not mean that a list of fictional applications of real materials is also notable. I encourage you guys to build a science in science fiction article. However, WP:FICTION dictates what is notable. From what I can gather from your argument, you're saying that since the topic of science in science fiction is notable, any article relating to science in science fiction is also notable. Notability is not inhereted, and beyond that this is only a list of indeterminible scope and lacking in reliable sources, as defined by both WP:RS and WP:FICTION. /Blaxthos 23:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • But science in science fiction is way too broad of a topic - there are whole books on the topic. So we already have Planets in science fiction, Kinetic energy weapons in science fiction, Time travel in science fiction, and at least 11 other articles of this type. (just do a search on "in science fiction" from the Wikipedia main page.) Since this page is basically materials in science fiction then I think either we should keep it, or that all these other pages are bogus, too. Or you could argue that they all belong in one article "science in science fiction", but then it would be too long and disjointed, IMHO. LouScheffer 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          / exactly. Sci-fi movies and books are generally considered reliable sources. Thus any often recurring thematic element would fit the notability requirements.--Marhawkman 00:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article seems useful and harmless. It certainly is not original research, since there are endless sources for both the real and fictional properties of each material. -- Lilwik 06:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially infinite list. I should think this would be the obvious reason for deletion. This would be rather like List of fictional characters. Strong Delete —Verrai 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hogtie bondage[edit]

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

Article contains no sources. No reliable evidence to confirm that this is indeed a notable facet of BDSM. Wikipedia has no need for such exhaustive detail of every conceivable sub-fetish - without reliable sources that discuss this issue its pure original research. WjBscribe 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The reference issue has been addressed.The warning about positional asphixia is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleflash (talk • contribs) 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sounds real, I'd give it a page.JJJ999 00:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Hogtie - Right action, wrong rationale. Hogtie use in bondage is well documented. But hogtie bondage (as opposed to suspension, mummification etc) is just a term for one way to do rope-immobilisation. It's got very little more to say that wouldnt readily fit under Hogtie#BDSM use. Second relevant reason: Articles covering very similar themes don't always need 2 articles, for minor variants. Communal approaches concur that items may be verifiable by reliable sources and yet not merit a stand-alone article. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Bondage (BDSM) Fails WP:V and WP:NN and seems to be bondage-cruft. --DarkFalls talk 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and redirect as noted by FT2. This is the action which will have the best result for Wikipedia's quality. A brief mention in the main article is sufficient. Daniel 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ok, I'm not saying it constitutes significant coverage, but google books suggests that there are books out there which do provide the kind of detail shown in the article - so I don't think its a case of WP:OR, just a badly sourced but otherwise plausible article. See this for example, which alludes to the 'technique' whilst describing a different one. Ok, ew and stuff... --TreeKittens 03:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My reasoning above was simplified obviously, the above one will do if you want a substitute. It "sounds real" but based on facts of course...JJJ999 03:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always found it fun, but nevertheless redirect to Hogtie, with closing admin or AN Other to see if there's anything reliably sourced and notable that could be merged. If not, just redirect. ➔ REDVEЯS was here 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complicated -- Merging to bondage sounds like a good idea, but then Hogtie has a big old Hogtie bondage section. for some reason???????? I personally think the Hogtie bondage section shouldn't be in Hogtie to begin with and the section in there is terrible and it even rambles on with "The group Turkish Hezbollah is known to hogtie its victims while torturing them." whatever that is about. This hogtie bondage article is much much much much better in comparison. I think the hogtie bondage section from hogtie should be moved into hogtie bondage and then hogtie bondage if it still is bad be merged into bondage. William Ortiz 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complicated per William Ortiz. The "references" are not encyclopedic, so they are not true references. I suggest tagging the article insufficiently referenced. By the way, Could anyone with access to OTRS please verify that images that link to Template:Img-confirmation have had a permission email from http://www.aussieropeworks.com/ (clean home page, but do not proceed any further if you do not or cannot legally watch adult-oriented materials) to OTRS? I also have to ask any OTRS volunteer to be sure that Image:Suspension-bb-lorelei-9016-jonwoods.jpg really has permission from http://www.bedroombondage.com/ (clean home page again) logged while the source site does not give blanket permission. Without logged permission at OTRS, I cannot transwiki any remaining bondage images from here to Commons.--Jusjih 01:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC) (adult admin here and on Commons)[reply]
  • Keep per William Ortiz. It sounds like a lot of cleanup and moving around of content is needed before we can decide to delete this article. Let the person doing the cleanup decide if a merge is needed leaving a redirect. Deletion at this time would simply make the cleanup process more difficult. Vegaswikian 05:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick Google search shows that hogties are quite common in bondage fiction. It's difficult to believe that there are no sources. A merger of every bondage article to Bondage would produce something totally unwieldy, and a merger to hogtie would also be unwieldy; indeed, the article seems to have originated as a split-off from hogtie. Is it claimed that bondage should not be covered on Wikipedia?--Bedivere 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one or the other, and merge Hogtie into this longer article, or this one into the more specific title. Then redirect the deleted article into the remaining article. Why? Neither article is well sourced, but as a concept they are notable, although close enough to warrant a single article, and lots of references must exist somewhere on The Internet or literature. Bearian'sBooties 19:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 00:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bay Street law firms[edit]

List of Bay Street law firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not notable at all. Like the title is stating, this list is about law firms in Downtown Toronto. Law firms in downtown are very typical in other North American cities. Please also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Smcafirst the Roadgeek|Questions? 23:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kraus[edit]

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

Non Notable (see below) Voceditenore 23:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion not notable bio. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:07, .3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Okay, so she was in several plays. So? There are many people that are in theatre that don't have articles here. Delete per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 23:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I proposed Delete for the following reasons:
  1. There is no evidence that Ms. Kraus has sung a principal role (or even a minor one) in any major opera house. The Amato Opera has a seating capacity of 110 and its mission is to create "a platform for aspiring young artists." [4]. The others mentioned in the article but not referenced are two community outreach companies Opera Company of Brooklyn, Opera Iowa/Des Moines Metro Opera and the Tulsa Opera Studio (which appears to give opera and voice training)
  2. She has not won or placed in any major music competitons. The only one referenced is as one of the 14 finalists in the Connecticut Opera Guild competition, although she did not win one of the top prizes there. [5]
  3. Her one recording listed is of a live Manhattan School of Music performance in NYC of Thomas Pasatieri's The Seagull. She had a very small role, Pauline. The actual performance was reviewed in both the New York Times and New York Magazine. She wasn't mentioned in either article.
  4. Of her three documented concert appearances, one consisted of singing 'Gee, I Wish I Was Back in the Army' from Irving Berlin's White Christmas at Offutt Air Force Base. The remaining two were student concerts at the University of Virginia. All references were simply concert announcements.
  5. This is the Google search for "Sarah Kraus" mezzo soprano (minus listings of the Seagull cd in the main online record shops).
  6. The article does not fulfill even one of the criteria for notability for musicians and ensembles
I am also concerned about a possible conflict of interest on the part of the sole author Steggles. Note the image page for the article. [6] This is a possibly promising fledgling opera singer (one of literally thousands), who may or may not one day achieve a significant career in music but, unfortunately, has not done so yet.Voceditenore 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete awaiting evidence of her individual notability. JJL 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom . . . even though she is rather pretty. -- Kleinzach 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is more like a promotional “flyer” content rather than an encyclopedia - unless if Wikipedia is “really” a promotional site, in which I doubt so. What the author could do if he/she wants to keep the article is to make it more like an encyclopedia content, for details about it, please refer to other tenor/soprano’s articles - Jay 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid it's not a just a question of style, although it does indeed read like a résumé. The inherent non-notability of the career remains, regardless of how it's written up - even if one could find verifiable secondary sources, significant press coverage, etc. to support what's already there. I tried very hard to find them myself before proposing this for deletion. They just aren't there. Voceditenore 15:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable per Voceditenore. Moreschi Talk 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Boreing[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, nothing at artistdirect.com or allmusic.com, only two Google hits for '"Kyle Boreing" Acclaim', no reliable sources for just him by his name. Corvus cornix 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acclaim Quartet[edit]

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

Non-notable band, nothing at artistdirect.com or allmusic.com for this band. It's hard to do a Google search, but this needs reliable sources, at least. Corvus cornix 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Angus[edit]

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

While some Saturday Night Live sketches are notable (such as More cowbell and Dick in a Box), I don't see any evidence of the notability of this sketch. I performed a Google search in which I was unable to find any reliable sources to confirm the notability necessary for inclusion. As such, I nominate this article for deletion. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martial BACQUET 23:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CLARION (cognitive architecture)[edit]

CLARION (cognitive architecture) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Promotional. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helies (talk • contribs) — Helies (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • keep Per Helies (who may be an SPA, but whose point seems irrefutable) peer reviewed publications & book of CLARION papers by numerous authors, published by Cambridge University Press. Seems as encyclopedic as any other cognitive architecture. Pete.Hurd 14:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. CLARION is a cognitive model comparable to ACT-R and Soar, both of which are listed in wikipedia. To see its notability, also consult cognitive scientists who work in this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.121.174 (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to be notable. Wikidemo 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable:

see an article in another online encyclopedia: http://www.calt.insead.edu/Encyclopedia/index.php?pagename=cognitive%20architectures

see an objective, third-party academic review of CLARION: http://www.ai.rug.nl/~niels/publications/architectures.pdf

see also: http://cll.stanford.edu/~langley/papers/arch.aimag.pdf

see also: http://sitemaker.umich.edu/soarweb/cognitive_architecture_sites_around_the_country

and simply do a Google search on "CLARION cognitive architecture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.113.89.45 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without consensus, based on WP:N. WP:COI and "that other stuff has been deleted" are not reasons to delete. A new AfD can be opened in the near future if necessary. Bearian 17:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Russell[edit]

Richard A. Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Mr. Russell is the U.S. "Deputy Associate Director of National Intelligence, for Information Technology Programs". This sounds like a nonnotable mid-level position. Although the author has vigorously asserted Mr. Russell's notability and claimed that there are news sources supporting this, s/he hasn't put any such sources in the article. NawlinWiki 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable. I know the google test isn't a good idea, but these were the top 6 hits:
1. Wikipedia article.
2. Richard Russell's Dow Theory Letters (different person)
3 to 5: Hits referring to the above Richard Russell (#2).
6. A bio about Richard M. Russell, who works who works for the US Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The only external link is broken, so delete per WP:BIO. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The external link isn't broken per se. If you click the link you'll see there was a pipe, the user tried to link as one does with internal links. The same is true of the other link. Fixed now. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fixed links on the sources don't really prove enough notability, but simply verify the contents (however, see below). AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment, oddly, the first link claims he's "Richard A. Russell, Director; US Department of Homeland Security". Odd; I really doubt that to be true, considering this link doesn't list him, or anyone titled as just 'Director'. The other link calls him "Deputy Associate Director of National Intelligence for Information Sharing and Customer Outreach". Just as odd, a different title for what one can assume is the same position as posted in the article. Now I'm throughly confused. :p Neither of the links assert any kind of notability except him being Director of Homeland Security - but as I say, I don't think that's correct... AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Comment We are I am in the process of adding additional sources and references to support Mr. Russell's notability. Additionally, we I believe that if the Information Sharing Community Outreach (ISCO) is important enough to stay on that its director's Bio should be listed as well.Pmp48596 17:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Slightly alarmed by tone of the last comment - Who's we? Possible WP:COI, if acting on behalf of an organization. That said, http://weblog.infoworld.com/article/05/06/28/HNgovernmentinfo_1.html http://www.gcn.com/print/23_15/26219-1.html and http://www.gcn.com/print/26_07/43404-1.html http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/November/SecurityBeat.htm provide adequate basis for case of note, and plainly meet WP:V & WP:RS, as do at least two other sources. Major cleanup required - will gladly undertake if survives AfD. Interesting topic, and well within the notability guidelines, both WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. MrZaiustalk 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point Taken I modified my previous comment to clarify that I am/was in the process of updating the Wiki entry. By using we, I was referring to the initial author of the page and myself. Thank you for pointing out my ambiguous use of the word we. Pmp48596 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still alarmed by COI issues with original author, who attributed the photo on the page as "this image is a government photo of mr. russell authorized for use on wikipedia by mr. russell." - Be he Russell or his subordinate? Rewrite might seem in order, after close. Notability's plain enough, but the article may not warrant retention in its current state. MrZaiustalk 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Likely WP:COI : Martinor 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • original author comment i posted the information about mr. russell based on my interest in the activities of the DNI with respect to modernization of the intel community toward creating a collaborative environment. i contacted mr. russell's office and asked them to send me a photo. i have no personal interest in promoting mr. russell, however it was my intent to post information regarding other key players in the intel community supporting the ODNI in the future.

delete - if jason brimelow is to be deleted for non notability then this entry should be deleted on the same criteria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.226.32 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Category:Riddims can be used for any notable Riddims or songs instead, and Diwali Riddim is a template for creating articles on individual Riddims. Contact me if userification of this deleted article is needed for informational retrieval.— Scientizzle 16:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Riddims[edit]

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

Suggest deletion as this pointless list gives no encyclopedic context and would be better served through categorization. See also: List of books to which Stephen King has written an introduction. Burntsauce 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Listcruft and unencyclopedic. Since the list is so darn big (131 different sections not counting EL's) , I don't think categorisation would do any better. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unencyclopedic list. No clear criteria for inclusion (since I think Riddim is a somewhat flexible definition), and not sourced. Bfigura (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an astonishingly comprehensive list (and the article on riddim gives a relatively good definition - I speak here with my dancehall aficionado hat on), but given that the vast majority of the riddims, let alone the songs themselves, have articles I'm not sure this is a good idea for an article. Precisely what Stephen King's introductions has to do with this discussion I'm not sure. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand what's pointless and miscellaneous about this list. The riddim article gives a clear defitinition of riddim and all of the elements of this list follow that definition. The list is of X's, not of X, Y, Z and W's that happen to have A in common - like the Stephen King introduction article. If it were List of songs that use the 100-watts riddim I'd be more inclined to delete. Also there is indeed sourcing - the songs cited are themselves verifiable sources. Bacchiad 13:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the issue is that it might be a WP:OR violation. Since the songs themselves don't claim or mention a particular riddim, someone has to make a determination as to which riddim is in which song. And while that's ok if the determination is made in a reliable souce, if an editor is doing it, it's original research. Just my thoughts. --Bfigura (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this. Your claim rests in part on the supposition that reliable sources must be written. I don't see where this is explicitly specified anywhere. Now, let's suppose written and sonic sources have equal standing. Let's say we had a List of poems in trochaic tetrameter. Would a secondary source be needed to say that all of the poems listed are in trochaic tetrameter? Or would any intelligent non-specialist reader's perception of trochaic rhythm be enough to go on? I'm not sure what the answer to that should be, but IMHO the same principle should apply in this case. Bacchiad 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary rationale for that deletion was that the scream features only as a brief sound effect in those films, and the list is thus a directory of loosely associated topics. This is not the case in riddims, which form the backbone of a song. The claim of original research was introduced later on in that discussion, so I don't believe the voting patterns there are sufficient to establish precedent on this question. Bacchiad 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, the Wilhelm scream list presupposed that each one of the members of the list used the specific sound sample, which is not possible to verify. By the riddim article, it is clear that riddim need not refer to identical shared sound samples, but may refer to a common bassline and drum pattern. Bacchiad 18:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...determined as common through original research. Right. Burntsauce 18:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. According to WP:RS: "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". The problem with arguing that a song is a RS is that in order to get at the riddim information, someone has to interpret it. And if editors are doing the interpreting, it's OR (or SYNTH). After all, what happens if two editors disagree which riddim a song has? If we were citing a published source, someone goes and looks it up, and sees who's correct. If it's purely interpretation, it's not resolvable, as it's becomes a matter of opinion. --Bfigura (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as this article has sources, there should be no reason to delete it. Looking at the article now, it is ripe for deletion. However, this article is a very good reference; it shows which songs are on a particular riddim, and since there are hundreds of reggae / dancehall riddims, it can be expanded. This article really needs sources though. I am in favour of keeping this article, it just needs a few sources here and there and it will make for a great reference. Blackjays1 02:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic listcruft. It should be noted that although Blackjays1 has motioned to keep the article, his arguments are those to delete it as well. WP:USEFUL is not a criterion for inclusion, not that it would be useful to anyone given the broad, interpretive subject matter and complete lack of references. RFerreira 19:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as listcruft. nothing more needs to be said... its all said above.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UNENC and WP:NOR. Marginal interest listcruft in the extreme. If each individual riddim were notable then there might be a case for a category, but they aren't so there isn't. A1octopus 22:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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


The result was Delete per WP:SNOW.--JForget 00:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skip Waters[edit]

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

Non-notable. "Accurately predicted snowfall for eastern North Carolina on Christmas of 1989" doesn't satisfy WP:N. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some sources can show he's notable. Also, the claim about his sexual orientation may be a BLP violation. Sasha Callahan 20:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 21:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. If there's an actual claim to notability here I missed it. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for crying out loud, this is ridiculous. Burntsauce 21:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for massive failure of WP:N. See WP:BLP1E too Bfigura (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete. I protest. THIS IS GAY-BASHING! HE IS REALLY GAY! Bwjs —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We all like Skip down here, but I can't see how he's notable outside of Eastern North Carolina. He's just our weatherman. Whether he's gay or not is irrelevant. To have an article on Wikipedia, he has to have more than just local notability and any information has to be sourced by third party sources. There are no sources in this article to back up any of the claims made. Kinston eagle 03:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since you all are right. Bwjs 13:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwjs (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Merely having a job does not make a person notable. I'm glad that he is doing a good job predicting the weather and wish him well. Steve Dufour 19:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. --BelovedFreak 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per CSD G11. --Chris (talk) 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairway Furniture[edit]

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

Spam article about non-notable furniture company, reads like brochure copy, and written by SPA. ThuranX 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chimping[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. It is also tagges as having inappropriate tone. The term "chimping" was coined in on the SportsShooter email newsletter. The references are: the original email on SportsShooter, a video of "Chimping exposed!" on SportsShooter and a category of images on Flickr tagged as "chimping". Much of the article reads as original research, the tone is indeed inappropriate and includes evident speculation or personal opinion. Little beyond the single paragraph of "history" would survive cleanup, and even if cleaned up it would probably be deleted as a slang dictionary definition. Cruftbane 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 21:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Keep per below. Guess it isn't a neologism as I thought. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 23:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wherever it was coined, it's become part of the photojournalist's lexicon and there are plenty of reliable sources for an article. [7][8][9][10] and has made its way into books on professional photography technique [11][12][13][14][15]. (Note: practically every one of the sources defines the term as well as using it, satisfying WP:NEO.) More than a dicdef as it is an aspect of camera selection as well as photography technique (i.e. taking more pictures than you would with film, then discarding). --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate notability and sourcing. Also, the article hasn't been tagged for deletion which seems sloppy. Colonel Warden 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the template to the article. Thanks for the heads-up. -- Ben 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I hope no one minds me placing an afdw on PiccoloNamek's talk page... as he appears to have more than one non-trivial edit on the page. -- Ben 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion per User:Colonel Warden. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- per Dhartung's excellent reasoning, and AGF.JJJ999 00:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As Dhartung has demonstrated, it's a real termed technique of digital photographers. --Oakshade 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable term, as confirmed above.--Bedivere 19:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improvement. Reliable references added. PeaceNT 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embargoed[edit]

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

I originally deleted this page as an expired PROD, but SolDrury contacted me, pointing some relevant links to me. As this essentially makes it a contested prod, I decided to reverse my original decision, and I'm sending it here instead. No !vote. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote the orginal article and to declare an interest I am a member of the organisation. In defense of the article Embargoed is part of a campaign both in Cyprus and the UK to ease the suffering of Turkish Cypriots living in Northern Cyprus. Embargoed! is actively engaged in many anti racism initutives, which are important to Turkish Cypriots. For example they held the first conference specifically about how racism effects Turkish & Turkish Cypriots in the UK. Along the way we have picked up broad support from the MEP Baroness Sarah Lunford to the Communication workers union.

I would be very happy to add references to the article if some one will show me how, and would be also happy for someone to edit the article so it sounds less like an advert. I do ask that the article is kept through.

Many thanks

SolDrury 10:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think we had better take this user up on his offer before this proceeds any further and see what information he can produce. matt91486 22:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've edited the article to include the references SolDrury put on another users talk page and to add in some press coverage I found of the organization's activities. I think this makes for a minor but notable organization and provided the article can be kept neutral, its presence will benefit the encyclopedia. I encourage others to look at the rewritten article to see if it now meets their own standards. -- SiobhanHansa 14:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, reallly verified, and with reliable sources. Some language needs to be softened, but that is easy to do here with a stub. I'll place a rescue tag on it. Bearian'sBooties 19:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

I'm going to be bold and close this as redirect to Camp Lazlo. Very good consensus that this page isn't needed, and since this page can't be deleted due to GFDL reasons redirecting is the only reasonable option. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Lazlo: Leaky Lake Games[edit]

Camp Lazlo: Leaky Lake Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article has been merged predominantly into the main Camp Lazlo article and is not required. treelo talk 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deflate! Er...delete. NN video game (notability is not ineherited) and per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Redirect to Camp Lazlo. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 21:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. STORMTRACKER 94 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IF THE CONTENT HAS BEEN MERGED THEN WE CANNOT DELETE THIS FOR GFDL REASONS. (!!!) Burntsauce 21:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Burntsauce already pointed out at very least this would be a redirect to retain the history. That said, and whilst I'm all for merging in general, the merge has resulted in a single paragraph where the current article is a perfectly workable stub. The game is obviously notable due to reviews by IGN and GameZone (amongst others) already in the article.86.138.198.93 23:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Camp Lazlo since that's where the content has been merged to. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Camp Lazlo per NeoChaosX -- the article has already been merged. RFerreira 19:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom--Bedivere 19:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soanya Ahmad[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Contested prod. Participant in a notable voyage. I have no opinion. Sethacus 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Notability is not inherited. -- ChrisO 21:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockaboogie Shake[edit]

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

While an album that is from a notable artist, may get the benefit of a doubt on spedy deletions, this is merely a list of songs and doesn't assert is notability or offer commentary on the album Mbisanz 02:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with nom; Most other articles of this type have other commentary, notability assertions, etc... This lacks completely. - Rjd0060 03:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup - The page for the artist, Gene Summers, is in dire need of some shaping up, but he appears to have recorded enough albums so as to make merging the track listings into the parent article ungainly. Track listings of albums are inherently encyclopedic, so this should be kept, and an infobox added, etc. Chubbles 04:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability assertions. The article has seen the addition of commentary in the form of two unsourced and directly quoted reviews. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sam Blacketer 15:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Beaver Cage[edit]

Operation Beaver Cage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax that nobody wants to delete. MarsRover 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 20:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not a hoax, but accuracy may be in question. Although the article indicates that this was in autumn 1966, it was a Marine operation in April 1967 to drive the North Vietnamese out of the area around Da Nang, wtih only limited success. Mandsford 20:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After a quick search it turns out it is in fact real but the article needs refs --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup Somebody needs to fact-check the article, though. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - navy.mil site mentions it in passing - http://www.history.navy.mil/ar/charlie/coastal12.htm - but it needs reliable sources. Corvus cornix 22:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it need more than fact check. The article is real specific about things that are completely wrong. ("The Republic of the North Vietcong"?, the dates should be around April 30th to May 10th[16]). If you delete everything not true what's left? Also, look at the author's contribs. MarsRover 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this might be a starting point for further research on "Hill 110", "Que Son", and "Bravo Company, 1/3 Marines":[17]--Victor falk 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, search validates.JJJ999 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deserves to be kept if all facts verified.--Bedivere 19:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a mess of an article. I tried to fix a few links. Bearian'sBooties 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy Swafford[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO for creative professionals. Be aware when doing Google searches, that websites such as super90.com and yes90.com are websites owned and maintained by the Cory family and are not valid independent sources. This Dorothy Swafford article was created by the subjects daughter, Priscilla Cory so also violates COI. Sc straker 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acme (band)[edit]

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

As per WP:Band. Could not find info on them via Google. Their name doesn't help though! Endless Dan 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Cory[edit]

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

Not-Notable. Fails WP:BIO. Sc straker 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded reason: Fails WP:BIO for creative professionals. Be aware when doing Google searches, that websites such as super90.com and yes90.com are websites owned and maintained by the Cory family and are not valid independent sources. This Troy Cory article was created by the subjects daughter, Priscilla Cory so also violates COI. His IMDB entry is also maintained by her. --Sc straker 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am also nominating the following related pages because [see above]: 

   :The Troy Cory Evening Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :The Troy Cory Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
   :List of LPs and CDs and Singles Recorded By Troy Cory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Comment Where, exactly, was it proved that "Beatress" is his daughter? Edison 23:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - sorry, my assumption. A user id "Beatress" on IMDB signs her forum posts as "Priscilla Cory" so I assumed, at least on IMDB, that "Beatress" there is "Priscilla Cory" as evidenced by the forum signatures. Her IMDB page as well as her father's seem to be well embellished by the user "Beatress" as mentioned in the forums. Here on WP, a user named "Beatress" has primarily edited Cory family-related articles so I stuck my neck out and assumed it was the same as the self-promoting "Beatress" on IMDB. Sorry for my assumption. But I would be more than happy to apologize if the Beatress here and the Beatress on IMDB are two separate individuals. Please visit the IMDB forums on the Priscilla Cory page for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sc straker (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC) --Sc straker 01:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS, and WP:COI. STORMTRACKER 94 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failing WP:BAND and WP:BIO, not to mention WP:COI, and don't forget to include the affiliated sites Priscilla Cory and List of LPs and CDs and Singles Recorded By Troy Cory. And, if you act today to trace down the links, you'll learn that there's a small error in the Wikipedia article -- it's not "BBC Radioplay" records, like the famous British label, it's "VRA Radioplay" -- whose entire output is the complete recordings of Troy Cory and affiliated musicians. And that's not all! You can learn that the entire filmic output of Priscilla Cory is 14, count them, 14, uncredited appearances in films and one 1978 MOW!! Don't delay -- delete today! Accounting4Taste 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to add that further reading of the article revealed one thing that just might confer notability -- if it's true that he was the first American entertainer allowed to perform in China. However, this nugget was so overlaid with self-promotion that I missed it the first time through. I also apologize for being not-very-funny above, this is serious stuff to this individual judging by the amount of work that went into the loads of self-promotion that I found. As near as I can tell, the books are all published by the same company, "Television International Pub.", and that company doesn't seem to have any other publications except those by Troy Cory cited. His relatives, of course, don't confer any notability, and the interaction between Troy Cory and Priscilla Cory and their mutual enterprises is a "walled garden". Accounting4Taste 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above per Accounting4Taste as well as The Troy Cory Show and The Troy Cory Evening Show (identical). No evidence of real notability. The only references to "Cory" aka Keith Stubblefield in Google News Archive pertain to a pay dispute and to his efforts to promote his relative Nathan B. Stubblefield as the inventor of radio. (As for super90.com, it's like a trip back to the 1990s web!) --Dhartung | Talk 20:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all, nothing to be said --Childzy ¤ Talk 20:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I hadn't seen so many templates in one article At least not since there was a two-sentence article that had four templates. until I saw this one. Also see Dorothy Swafford. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would a dozen or so stories related to his purchase and operation and eventual sale of a radio station WNBS in Murray, Ky count for something toward notability? How about several stories about his efforts to gain recognition in 1992 for the accomplishments of his inventor-grandfather, which gained press coverage [18] and were discussed in a book [19] free of the conflict of interest problems of Cory's own website and books? Edison 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm anxious to keep an open mind on this and I am willing to be convinced of Troy Cory's notability. I see the book at [www.nathanstubblefield.com] as being primarily about his grandfather, who does indeed seem to be notable. I'm having a hard time locating the dozen or so stories about radio station WNBS; it's not cited in the article about him, but I have Googled a number of references to one or more videos (most of the locations seem to be, as above, on websites controlled by this gentleman, and YouTube). Are these what you're referring to? Really, folks, I'm now very sorry I tried to be funny above, because if this man has notability, I want to help him demonstrate it to everyone's satisfaction. Yes, he's done a lot of self-promotion, but there's the potential for notability in some of these items and I want to investigate it properly. Accounting4Taste 00:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page here [20] gives two of the stories referred to, in which Troy Cory is mentioned, with dates in 1991. Accounting4Taste 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll now suggest that Mr. Cory should have a sentence or two in the article about Nathan Stubblefield, his grandfather -- according to [21], he went to jail for a couple of days in connection with his attempts to demonstrate that his grandfather invented radio. Accounting4Taste 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll meet you there, Accounting4Taste. He probably is notable enough to be mentioned in the Stubblefield article. But I believe those articles cited are only notable or of interest in Murray, KY or perhaps statewide KY. Certainly not notable enough to have his own page. Plus don't be sorry for your humor, it made my day ;) --Sc straker 01:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What it's Worth[edit]

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

Local weekend radio talk show, no reliable independent sources to establish notability Cap'n Walker 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.IP198 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. STORMTRACKER 94 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a local weekend radio show. No notability here. Bfigura (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A local radio show where the time was bought by the real estate agency which owns the show; the hosts are employed by the agency and probably don't talk about other agencies beyond 'We don't talk about them. This is the Associates show only, go with us!'. WP:SPAM because they had to buy their way onto the air, and a WP:COI because the only other edits for the article creator were other KLLI time-buy shows. Nate 07:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable.--Bedivere 19:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CTX Mortgage Show[edit]

The CTX Mortgage Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Local weekend radio talk show, no reliable independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:OR and WP:N. STORMTRACKER 94 19:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. Only notability asserted is an OR claim that one of the people in the show is a #1 salesman for the area. Even if that was sourced and true, notability isn't inherited. Bfigura (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Plastic Surgery Today, CTX and Mr. Anderson buy the time from the station, making it more an infomercial selling his services than a show which welcomes all viewpoints (or towards other other mortgage companies or consumer options). It's SPAM, and a COI with an editor who created articles based on KLLI time-buy shows only. Nate 07:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

With one self-released album, and apparently only local tours, I don't think this band comes anywhere near WP:BAND. But I could be wrong... ELIMINATORJR 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the band certainly exists, but haven't quite got there yet (if they ever will). They don't seem to be notable vis a vis chart placings, being influential, famous members etc. And shouldn't it be "Naps"? Totnesmartin 18:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND. STORMTRACKER 94 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only ref I can see is the Cleveland one, and there's no indication of others at the moment. If they take off in the near future and release albums through a notable label, then maybe, but right now they don't meet WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Out of the four references, only one is a reliable source (The Free Times). But that's still not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to recreation if they become more notable. Spellcast 22:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The entire entry is more promotional than it is informative. It reads like a press release.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni and Sebastian[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient reliable sources to validate claims asserted in the article. Even so, the article states the band is fictional and doesn't assert much in the way of notability. SkerHawx 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think this article is a hoax: the Albanians have all but disappeared - possibly due to their Manager's involvement with the notorious Albanian Pyramid scheme., Well, the notorious pyramid scheme was in 1997, according to this. Actually, why did I even bother looking it up? Totnesmartin 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Keeper | 76 18:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:HOAX. STORMTRACKER 94 20:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes that's a hoax and some the jokes appear to have been recycled from Molvanîa. A1octopus 22:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crank 2[edit]

Crank 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

2009 is a little WP:CRYSTALly at this point, especially with only one actor named. Producers have said there's going to be a Crank 2, but not much else ([22]) shoy 17:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, infringes WP:CRYSTAL and, frankly, the only point that's made in this brief article, that Crank 2 will star Jason Statham, I find hard to believe -- his character dies at the end of Crank, unambiguously. And any prequel would be Crank 0, wouldn't it? Accounting4Taste 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree Accounting4taste. STORMTRACKER 94 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually Statham doesn't 'unambiguously' die at the end of Crank, he opens his eyes and there's clearly another heartbeat right at the end, leaving the possibility that he's still alive. If the producers have said there's going to be another film, and that Statham has been named as a participant, then there's something to start an article with. Nick mallory 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Okay, I thought he died by falling from a great height, but you could be right. The original source, though, at [23] says "I have no idea how on earth they can even think about this. The ONLY possible way to do it is with another main character. And that hardly ever works. Switching actors is one thing… switching main characters for a sequel (Ahhemm… Speed 2) is another thing all together. Aside from that… the only thing I can think of is a prequel." But to my surprise, Rotten Tomatoes says it's going to be a sequel.[24] Since I like Jason Statham's work, that was a pleasant surprise. Accounting4Taste 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment IRL, people have survived falls from greater heights... but that character is supposed to die from the drug cocktail anyway, according to the doctor in the movie. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that another movie is confirmed is probably better dealt with as a sentence in Crank since there's no way this article can say any more at this point. When more details are released, the article can be spun out then. shoy 12:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:MOVIE says: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material. Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun. Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines." So I will look forward to seeing this film, but not change my "vote" from delete. Accounting4Taste 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IIRC, the producers have said that everything after he smokes the whatever the cabbie gives him is a dream sequence. I saw that on an interview site. 132.205.44.5 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I know I'm no one, but this is 100 percent confirmed to be happening. [25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.254.24 (talk) 02:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Doesn't matter what you think, its confirmed true, Don't bother deleting this article, well just have to re-instate it immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.136.87 (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At this stage a non-notable and speculative article. Accounting4Taste has already highlighted the relevant wording from WP:MOVIE. Others have asserted that the movie is definitely going to be made, but in the absence of sources such as a studio announcement this constitutes original research and does not justify the article. Even if a studio announcement was made, WP:MUSIC also states states: "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". Lastly, the article principally consists of a lengthy public quote - nothing irreplaceable would be lost if this article was deleted and then recreated if/when the movie is made and released. Euryalus 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete Hayward Area Historical Society, keep due to no consensus on others. But I'm going to CSD Hayward Public Library ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Area Historical Society[edit]

Hayward Area Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Historical Society that does not assert notability, and is not supported by secondary source references, WP:SPA created the article, significant editing needed, but nothing notable to condense to. SkerHawx 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, and they're related to the primary nomination:

Alex Giualini Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hayward Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hayward City Center/Centennial Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electrojockey[edit]

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

Not notable neologism with only about 20 unique Google hits and no google news or archive hits.]. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Defence Exhibition[edit]

International Defence Exhibition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this is CSD A7, but I'm not sure, so I'm listing it here. Notability for this exposition not asserted. --MikeVitale 17:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per CSD A7. STORMTRACKER 94 20:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't think there's enough notability behind a single arms show that seems to have received minimal coverage. Delete. (Wonder if I can buy a tank there... nobody would cut me off in traffic then...) Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely not A7, since it claims to be the largest such exhibition in the middle east, an obviously important market. . Keep, because it sources itto Jane's, an unquestionably RS. DGG (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is a large international arms show not notable? Artw 23:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does assert and establish notability.--Bedivere 20:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Aros Hunter[edit]

Cecilia Aros Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article has been tagged for cleanup/expansion since March. Nothing has happened in 7 months. --MikeVitale 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Gene Hunter[edit]

Leslie Gene Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Page has been tagged as needing work and had its notability questioned since March 2007. In 7 months, nothing has happened. --MikeVitale 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:PROF. LG Hunter has written one book, with his wife, and his journals have been cited by, well, let's say less than 10.--Sethacus 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable professor under WP:PROF Bfigura (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first Google hit for the name is this article. There are no news hits for recent news, and none for archived news items. Nearly every retired professor from major Universities will have been published in journals, and even written subject-specific books, but Hunter's have received no significant press coverage. While I highly respect professors and admire their work, I don't believe that every single professor at major colleges would be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Ariel♥Gold 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep/Weak Keep Weak keep For an article not to have been worked on for three months does not make a subject non-notable. Not every subject has dozen of fans. Not necessarily because of the title, but in practice most full professors at major universities will have done sufficient work to merit an article, retired or not retired. (Usually when they retire is when someone write a biographic notice and we hear of them, but they were notable from their work before that). they don't get in the newspapers, but that's not where their notability lies. their notability lies in their professional work and the acknowledgment by the profession. In particular, he was chair of the department in an unquestionably first-rate research university. Few historians rise to that level--probably less than one in ten college teachers get to a full professorship at universities like Texas A&M--that make him much more notable than the majority of his profession.--quite apart from being the chair. I will say that the chairmanship and the listing of books and articles was not in the inadequate article when it was nominated. But anyone could have found them, in google scholar and in worldCat. However, it must also be said that he worked in a very narrow field, that his publication record seems fairly unspectacular, and that his notability seems to be as much as a teacher and academic administrator as a scholar. DGG (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • FWIW, Texas A&M-College Station is not the same as Texas A&M University–Kingsville. The former has over 46,000 students and is the main campus of that university. The latter has around 6,500 students, and is a satellite campus of the Texas A&M System. I'm not disagreeing with any of your statements; simply stating a fact... --MikeVitale 13:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
agreed, and therefore I've changed to a week keep. It does explain why the publication record was less than expected--it really would have surprised by for the main university. DGG (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Conference on Artificial Intelligence[edit]

European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this fits CSD A7, but am not 100% sure. So I'll list it on AfD instead. --MikeVitale 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:N. Does not qualify for CSD A7 because it is a question of notability. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the leading conference in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Europe does qualify for notability, I should hope.  --Lambiam 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 11 scholarly references give support for lumping ECAI in with IJCAI and AAAI as the major AI conferences. Likely some of these could be used as reliable secondary sources here. —David Eppstein 23:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A more in-depth reliable secondary source: Laine, Tei (1998), "Logic, ontologies and mental states – report on the ECAI-98 conference", AI Communications, 11 (3–4): 229–232. I haven't tried to access the text of this report yet, just its abstract, but it looks very relevant. The same journal issue has more reports also on ECAI-98, and a later report on ECAI-2000. —David Eppstein 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC) On more careful inspection, this source is not secondary: it is in a journal sponsored by the same society as the conference. —David Eppstein 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be OK. The thing to watch out for with things like this is which side they fall on the borderline between being an academic society (good) and an industry lobbying group (could be bad). They do publish journals and proceedings of the conferences, and from looking around the various websites, including the one of the last conference (see here), this is good stuff. Also, it has been running for a long time, which is usually a sign of notability. Carcharoth
  • Keep. Long-established academic conference with more than national impact. Maintaining articles on such conferences is particularly important as they are vehicles for publication of research which might be referenced in the encyclopedia; as with academic journals, including articles on major conference series is therefore critical in assisting readers to evaluate the trustworthiness of sources. Espresso Addict 07:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Desperate Housewives' remark on the Philippines[edit]

2007 Desperate Housewives' remark on the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is not a notable news event. It is briefly covered in the main Desperate Housewives article, so it does not require a separate article. Perhaps it does not belong in the main article either, but that may be a separate question. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable news not for Shalom but for the Philippines. Don't be such a racist Shalom. This is Democracy...it's not a nonsense... It's important for the Filipinos... Are you from ABC. The Filipinos want this article to be in its right place. Bother anything else...get lost! HInicome 17:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Append a speedy delete - the original creator has been blocked for invoking WP:POINT, which brings into question and scrutiny the validity and the performance of this article outside of the confines of the creator's interests.--WaltCip 22:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly SALT. The notation within Desperate Housewives seems sufficient, if required at all, and as I see by comments here, there are problems with WP:NOT#SOAPBOX which may require SALTing. Accounting4Taste 17:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm leaning toward the opinion that it is noteworthy, however it already seems fully covered by the brief mention in the main article. I don't see what else there is to say that would need a full separate article.--Cube lurker 17:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's next? 2003 Scrubs' remark on nurses? 2002 Family Guy's remark on the Mexicans? Will (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete some people got the hump about a line on a TV programme. So what? Even Joghn Lennon's remark about being bigger than Jesus doesn't seem to merit an article so why should this? It'll be forgotten in a month. And also, Alf Garnett would merit a whole new encyclopedia for what he's said down through the years! Totnesmartin 18:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Mention in main article is more than enough. DCEdwards1966 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the definition of "Wikipedia is not a news service". Next year, will anyone remember or care? Remember when the Simpsons bashed East St. Louis and the mayor of East St. Louis got mad? See my point? Smashville 18:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it is worthy to note that similar controversies regarding the Simpsons are covered in Wikipedia. Not sure about the East St Louis one, but the New Orleans and the Brazil controversies both recieve a paragraph in the article for the individual episode. To be clear, see my above comment, there's no need for a separate article, but I also don't think the incident needs to be purged from WP atogether.--Cube lurker 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and think your point does follow that. It's notable within the context of the episode...or, if the show is not notable to have episodic pages, it's notable to mention on the main page. I know this isn't the first Desperate Housewives controversy. Smashville 19:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DCEdwards, and suggest WP:SNOW close. Leuko 19:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unsourced cruft. Unless this gets covered by reliable sources, it is not even worthy of a mention on the main Desperate Housewives page, as anyone under the sun can file an online petition about anything they want. Tarc 19:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that the remark was inflammatory but I don't think it deserves an article. If we create articles for every derogatory message created by "developed" countries, the Wikipedia servers will be overloaded. It is not cruft if you are on the receiving end, Tarc.--Lenticel (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Hinicome, the creator of the article in question, nominated 11 articles for deletion solely because they were created by the nominator. --Old Hoss 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That user is now blocked. (good work) Seems they had a bad habit of creating very non-notable articles, anyway. Rocket000 20:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE - Even though ABC has already apologized [26], our Senators want the program blocked [27]. The news articles can be used as ref to DH or this article, my vote is still delete though.--Lenticel (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability even if it's not fictional. NawlinWiki 21:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NUFN[edit]

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

Page does not assert notability of a possibly-fictitious(?) organization with "over 70 members." MikeVitale 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of importance/significance. I find this article very peculiar and possibly a hoax -- Canada still uses the penny, so why is this small group of people focusing on the nickel? Also, nearly zero in the way of Google hits for the acronym; no one has found this group to be notable, it seems. So I recommend deletion unless someone can back this up with third-party citations that I couldn't find. Accounting4Taste 17:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Delete If you check the edit history, you'll see the phrase "is a fictional organization" was changed to "is an organization" recently. (And "fictional" was in the original entry.) No doubt - WP:HOAX. SkerHawx 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, virtually no content, also see WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki 21:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicot 4: Around The World[edit]

Crash Bandicot 4: Around The World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I think this is a crystall ball that needs to be shattered. Zero Google hits. Spellcast 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't find anything to indicate that this is accurate info. Very questionable notability even if it is accurate.--Kubigula (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. No web hits - not on the developer's web site. The article's title isn't even spelled correctly (Bandicot should be Bandicoot). Very much a crystal ball. SkerHawx 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No hits anywhere, nothing at all to back this up. Arakunem 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Hmm... it seems that this is number CB 4. not sure since I didn't play the game--Lenticel (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in order to disambiguate. The dab idea has it, but two dabs to the same articles seems a poor idea when a redirect to the teitch dab would do the same. The "merge" requests are noted, but the article was unsourced assertions about a complex subject that physicians disagree over, so there was nothing to merge. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twitching[edit]

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

"Twitching" is a verb not a noun, is not a scientific term, and is covered by "fasciculation," "tic," and other articles. Clearly the article is a joke, but even then, "twitching" does not deserve a namespace. Cyborg Ninja 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Actually it is a noun, but there are other issues. It isn't scientific, and there is an article for twitch as well. - Cyborg Ninja 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't deserve an article. ILovePlankton 16:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I restored the wikified version from before the vandalism (this is the 2nd article I've seen in two days that somebody has cut-and-pasted the displayed text into the editor). As written, it seems indistinguishable from spasm, but I wonder if a redirect to twitch is what we really should do. --Dhartung | Talk 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge/redirect Um, why are we deleting a decent stub about an obviously notable topic? It seems that this article may be redundant with other articles about muscle contraction, spasm, tic and so forth; in that case, a redirect may be in order. Otherwise, keep as is. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Twitch provides redirects to relevant articles. At the least, there should be a redirect. This AfD entry is meant to derive a consensus. Please assume good faith next time. - Cyborg Ninja 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page and simplify. Reason:

Need to differentiate between birdwatching and muscle spasms. Do not merge with Fasciculation as these are different from the twitches from stimulant induced spasms (tend to be sporadic larger single jerks). Epilepsy is different again but I would not describe it a twitching so I think it should be removed. Regarding 'Parkinson's', I think most people would use the search term Tremor, and so this one should possibly be removed. Then one has blepharospasm and hemifacial spasms which is not on the list but should be. Also various other things are often described as twitching i.e. 'antenna,' 'servos' and other actuators. Redirect to Twitch as Twitching is a common search term—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspro (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC) --Aspro 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Twitch. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with DAB page with links to birdwatching and the wiktionary article. Artw 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to or from related articles like Tic. NHRHS2010 Talk 23:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page, merging what's here to twitch, and dabbing between that and birdwatching, which is often called "twitching". Grutness...wha? 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page, absolutely agree. I actually thought this article was about birdwatching when I saw the title. J Milburn 16:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation pageper J Milburn; I had decided that before reading his comment.--Bedivere 20:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following the merge. Eluchil404 20:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Mary Mumford[edit]

Lady Mary Mumford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Lady in waiting to a princess, which might be notable in Ye Olde Medieval Wikipedia, but does not satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend 16:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. See WP:COI and WP:CRYSTAL as well as the policies mentioned by others below. Eluchil404 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review fiction[edit]

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

Advert for a proposed e-publishing method. Not even implemented yet. -- RHaworth 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN enough yet maybe after it's implemented. ILovePlankton 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until it becomes the next Web 2.0 craze. An idea published in a thesis is just an idea. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research -- someone's Master's thesis, as it says -- and WP:POV problems with "cliques of editors". And I can't find any objective reference to this anywhere, all cites are self-generated, so doesn't meet WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response-the site is running, just started yes, but running, four members so far... however this is not relevant. the concept is original and in existence. I have made some changes to make it more neutral. removed "cliques' phrase. added more historical data and references. I believe firmly that this concept is the new direction for publishing and I simply wish to document its date of birth. --JDAdler 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Runaway (Avatar: The Last Airbender)[edit]

The Runaway (Avatar: The Last Airbender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Episode name came from a source that assumes it is the name based on a leak. Here is the link where the assumption was made. The Placebo Effect 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Puppetmaster (Avatar: The Last Airbender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nightmares and Daydreams (Avatar: The Last Airbender) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Day of the Black Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete Avatar Spirit Media's episode guide doesn't have the episode titles (ASM is ninety-nine times out of a hundred reliable), so... Will (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASN does indeed have the titles under the DVD info, but it does not matter considering it was gotten directly from TvShowsonDVD. The discussion should remain of whether the titles were based on an assumption. Which they were. -Dylan0513 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Slarti (1992) 21:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they aren't confirmed yet by a reliable source. Bagpipeturtle 04:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion--JForget 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GNS Theory[edit]

Original research. A psychological theory relating to role-playing games, where all the links and sources effectively point to the original author again. Wikipedia is not the place to post your novel essays. >Radiant< 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This is not a novel essay, it is a theory of game design. Edward321 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This article appears to be closely related to this. Maybe a merger or redirect is in order. I cannot find any reliable sources that deal with this topic. Of the sources listed on the page, 5 link to one website, hardly an assertion of notability. That being said, the article is over four years old and has been edited quite heavily by numerous editors. The article originally started out as a redirect to Libre Mo'Ron, which has since been deleted. I think this article boils down to one man's theory of RPGs. Without other references, this should be deleted or merged. --Cyrus Andiron 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge to Ron Edwards. The model has received critical attention e.g. but there may not be enough material for a balanced article (and it's unclear whether any of the papers citing it have been published in peer-reviewed journals). --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, the critical attention Dhartung found is pretty minimal, and I can't quite figure out what, Dissecting larp is, oh wait! there's a wikipedia article on it, sort of at Knutepunkt about "A live role playing avant-garde movement". If this article gets merged into Ron Edwards then The Big Model ought to be merged in there too (and maybe Trollbabe while we're at it). The Big Model is just as bereft of reliable sources as this article is. The Threefold Model is also totally unsupported by reliable references. At first glance, Role-playing game theory has some sources, and is the logical home for GNS Theory, The Big Model and Threefold Model, but it's unclear whether any of the reliable sources there support any of these articles. In summary GNS Theory, The Big Model and Threefold Model are all role playing cruft, unsupported by reliable sources, and of no demonstrated encyclopedic value. As psychological theories they fail WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this isn't original research, ominator is misled. More refs would be a good idea, though, I agree. Percy Snoodle —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is not an original research. It a significant step in the field of RPG theory. I won't agree to merge it with 'role-playing game theory neither. Maybe we should consider adding references. --Arnauld (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge (not particular which, but the info is useful) Some matters lend themselves to corroboration more readily than others, and one of the useful features of Wikipedia is the ability to find info other sources may not have in a reasonably balanced form. I'm not a gamer, but I am writing on the topic at the moment, and the GNS classification is helpful, whether the theory is valid or not. (I hadn't even heard of it before.) Being able to refer my readers to this article or another with essentially the same information would be very useful. Ansric 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FIRST Lego League. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power Puzzle[edit]

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

This article appears like an ad, with only spam links and unfree images Martial BACQUET 14:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT an ad! I am not sure about the images because the images are copyrighted, but they are given away FREE! MindstormsKid 15:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It may not be an ad, but it does read like one. ILovePlankton 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to FIRST Lego League. The latter is notable, but I'm not so sure about individual competitions. Google News has a couple of announcements, that's it. --Dhartung | Talk 16:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To learn more about FIRST LEGO League, go to: http://www.firstlegoleague.org What do you mean by "individual competitions? MindstormsKid 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam! MindstormsKid 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with FIRST Lego League as per Dhartung. When I first accessed the article, I found it incomprehensible on its own -- there is not an adequate explanation of what is going on here, which for me makes it a subset of the other page because that other page is necessary to understand this one. I'm very suspicious of FIRST Lego League as possible spam because of the copyrighted nature of Lego as a brand, but it's not up at AfD AFAIK, and this is. Looks to me like a clever way to sell more Lego by getting young people all fired up about the competitions, as seems to be happening in this AfD. Accounting4Taste 17:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first article. I am not finished. And if you look at the link you will see that you are wrong. Or go to lego, and look in the news section. It should be there. MindstormsKid 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect per Dhartung. There's not enough notability here to merit this article, much less reliable sources. Bfigura (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know that they are not reliable? The Photos have been removed (except the logo), what more do you want?

MindstormsKid 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect per Dhartung. As a long-time FIRSTie myself, I'd say articles on FIRST-related topics are certainly notable. I'd say this belongs on FIRSTWiki as well, if it's not there already. -- Tckma 00:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you want me to remove the logo? If so, that is fine. Is there anything else you want me to do to it besides Merge and Redirect? MindstormsKid 13:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No one's asking you to do anything. A Wikipedia administrator will do whatever is decided upon. Accounting4Taste 15:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Jurgens[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:BIO. No secondary sources available and his books don't appear to be widely cited. Esrever 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BIO. Partially agree with nom. There aren't any reliable sources available. --Sethacus 16:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources not available from where? Google is not the only source. Mstuomel 16:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN per WP:BIO ILovePlankton 16:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, numerous Catholic history books in Google Books do cite him. It is unlikely that many reviews of his books will be online. --Dhartung | Talk 16:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, Fr. Jurgens' books are used frequently in Catholic RCIA classes (see Google for plenty of examples), although I'm not sure that in itself warrants an article on him. Perhaps the books he compiled "Faith of the Early Fathers" deserve the article and he deserves a mention in it? SkerHawx 17:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen this argument before where an author is primarily known for one title, but I don't like the solution. A book can never have more authors (unless revised), but an author can write more books. It makes more sense to have those in the article on the author, and the judgement call on when the notability is acquired by the book vs. the author is one I'd prefer we didn't make. --Dhartung | Talk 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • moderate keep- as above, some validity here, and I heard him quoted in a debate once. Noteworthy if small article...JJJ999 00:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Dhartung that we should prefer to have the article on the author in most cases--it offers more possibity for growth. In this case there are several related books, and so the author would seem to be the choice. Certainly there isnt enough notability for both. DGG (talk) 06:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Dhartung. --Sc straker 01:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Hills Crossing[edit]

Cedar Hills Crossing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mall in Oregon. Only context is the site's contamination in the 1980s, which is far from unique. Only sources are an aerial photo (!) and some analysis of the site. A Google search turns up mainly links to the mall's theater complex, so the mall fails WP:RS and WP:V. Almost no context is given to the mall's stores either. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It is a stub which could be expanded to include information about its stores. This page can definitely be improved, rather than deleted. - Rjd0060 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Okay, anything can be expanded, that's not really a valid reason for keeping the article. Nothing in the article asserts why this particular mall is notable enough to merit its own page. Unless the underground gas leak caused hideous mutations to all mall occupants at the time, I don't think this particular mall deserves an article. --Cyrus Andiron 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks notable to me and meets our standards for verifiability through multiple non trivial sources. What's the problem? Burntsauce 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:OUTCOMES. Non-notable mall. Corvus cornix 22:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:OUTCOMES is irrelevant, as notability is clearly conveyed within the article and backed by a half dozen different reliable sources. I could care less if one of them is an aerial photo. RFerreira 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks assertion of notabilty. Yes, it exists, but that is not the same as notability. Vegaswikian 05:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Sources are reliable as public agencies and established scientific labs. Notability is chiefly due to the site's being an historic airport in American aviation history, where many innovations in aircraft design were first tested. Woodsylass 04:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norn (Creatures)[edit]

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

Delete. Original research and not notable. Endless Dan 14:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Grand? --Endless Dan 18:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AI/virtual life researcher, creator of the brain model behind Creatures. He was made an OBE for this and subsequent work in the field. GreenReaper 19:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and, yes, what GreenReaper said. There were more than enough newspaper articles and the such at the time, too, but someone would have to hunt that all down in order to write an article which deserves inclusion, and the current article isn't really helpful. --Fuzzie (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obvious nonsense (their first concert drew 500,000 people, but didn't happen to get mentioned in the media?). NawlinWiki 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Smoking Aces[edit]

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

Obvious overbellished facts with some hoaxes thrown in of an otherwise non-notable band. Their MySpace shows 152 plays for their latest single, which is a few(!) less than the claimed 200 million sales. Somehow I doubt they were interviewed by Kerrang!, and I suspect the numbers for album sales are similarly faked. No AMG profile, a google search brings up no reliable sources to demonstrate any legitimate claims for notability. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 14:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Creatures (artificial life program). ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albia[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced and not notable in the very least. Endless Dan 14:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: To Creatures (artificial life program). - Rjd0060 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge as above. Some small amount of detail about the world is likely to be interesting for readers; perhaps just the lede and the mention that it was disc-shaped as an explanation for the 2D presentation. GreenReaper 15:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete, article does not cite any sources (WP:OR, WP:V). Sandstein 20:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAOS[edit]

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

Strong delete. Where do I start? This article is an unnotable mess. Endless Dan 14:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You start by reverting it to the non-vandalized version. GreenReaper 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now it's just unnotable. --Endless Dan 14:48, 3 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, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete and redirect to Time Out of Mind. Consensus is that 'Til I Fell in Love with You is a content fork for which existing reliable source information can be covered adaquately in Time Out of Mind. The listing of other articles in the AfD came to late to be considered in this AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 02:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Til I Fell in Love with You[edit]

AfDs for this article:
'Til I Fell in Love with You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC#Songs on every level. Didn't chart, won no awards, not noteworthy, hasn't been performed by any other groups or artists and hasn't been covered by independent works. I have searched for sources and have come up with nothing. Seraphim Whipp 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have expanded my rationale for deletion as requested (Seraphim Whipp 17:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; these articles contain content not suitable for an encyclopedia (as they stand).

The fact that notability is "WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE" doesn't mean that it can be disregarded; these articles do fail the relevant outlined notability guideline. Complete lack of proof of notability is a valid reason for deletion as found at WP:DEL#REASON.

I'm not prejudiced to recreation, in fact the opposite, when sources have been found that is exactly what should happen. I just think these articles were created prematurely and don't comply with our encylopedic standards.

User Seraphim Whipp's argument was rebuked wholly on the article's discussion page. As the notability guideline stipulates, this article can be deleted or merged if it acquires "permanent stub" status. The article has only been up for a few hours and as such should be allowed to exist for the time being.--Dawson1066 22:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. So if we keep it around for some indeterminate period of time, it somehow becomes less notable? What makes this non-notable song notable right now? Redirect until or unless the song beocmes notable, not the other way around. Corvus cornix 22:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey everyone. Originally I had prodded the article but the prod was debated so I brought it to afd. I also tagged another 4 articles with prod but I really do think redirecting those would be best too. Since I am using afd process with this song I don't think ti would be correct of me to simply redirect the rest of them without also using afd. Therefore I have listed these other articles for deletion too:

All from the Time out of Mind album: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim Whipp (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Road Blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Standing in the Doorway (Bob Dylan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Million Miles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tryin' to Get to Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all Time out of mind was a hugely successful album, both critically and commercially and there's always a slew of media and critical discussion of Dylan's work. Nick mallory 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you find any sources? If you say they exist then please add them to the articles and improve them. Otherwise you are basing your judgement on whether there might be sources. Recreate them when sources have actually been found and the articles can prove their notability (which isn't inherited from the album).Seraphim Whipp 00:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related afd : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum Seraphim Whipp 01:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the above which - at the time of writing - have no reliable, third-party non-trivial references provided demonstrating their notability. At a pinch, a series of redirects to the appropriate album may be viable, but I'm not sure they'd be the most common search terms. The attempted rebuttal (one "rebuts" an argument, rather than "rebuking" it) seems to have the process of notability around the wrong way. The subject must first become notable, then it can be written about. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All The album won the 1997 Grammy Award for Album of the Year[28] which is an award for the "collection of songs", which leads me to believe they're probably notable and may pass WP:MUSIC#Songs 5. It has won a significant award or honor. The articles are 3 days old, why not let someone actually write them? dissolvetalk 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an award winning song so seems to meet #5 WP:Music#Songs as pointed out above, and it seems to have had good news coverage by independent sources [29] so may meet #1 and #4 as well. --Kudret abiTalk 21:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The song itself hasn't been pointed out as an award-winner. The album it comes from was, though. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gameware Development[edit]

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

Delete. Not notable/promo --Endless Dan 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom (NN). - Rjd0060 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Creature Labs as it contains useful information about what happened to the remnants of that company; while technically a new company, it was formed primarily from old staff and took up the old assets. However, we should be selective about what is merged - some may be more appropriate in BAMZOOKi, or left out altogether. The Gameware Development article was originally created by User:Yoyolise, who appears to be Lisa de Araujo, an employee or contractor of the company. The facts are in order but the wording may be an issue. GreenReaper 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GreenReaper. ILovePlankton 16:32, 3 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, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jreferee t/c 02:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taco Box[edit]

Taco Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  1. Delete. Not notable. Endless Dan 13:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete Plain Advertising and also not-Notable.Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an obvious hoax being that it's a restaurant located "in the United States". But if it's not a hoax, then it's an incredible name for a restaurant! Fish tacos for everyone! Mandsford 15:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have two locations: Clovis, NM and Portales, NM. That's not notable. Delete. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:Notable... and I thought a "chain" had more than two links. Accounting4Taste 17:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable company. NawlinWiki 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. JJL 00:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not even a claim to notability here. I'm speedying. Bfigura (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - now a category. -- RHaworth 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable or notorious antisemites[edit]

Notable or notorious antisemites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I'm breaking my own "don't nominate new pages for deletion" rule, and bringing this over for discussion now to get some kind of consensus. While there's a potentially valid list to be created here, there's also potential for either some spectacular BLP violations and/or a sprawling indiscriminate list of information, so I'm bringing it here to get a consensus on whether it should exist before anyone starts adding names to it. Procedural nomination so I abstain. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposting this from my talk page, to give more clarification as to why I nominated now)

I don't personally think the article should be deleted, and have nominated it procedurally because I know from experience that it will be nominated. For what it's worth, the nearest precedent (List of bisexual people, nominated in February for the same reasons) passed its AfD and I assume this will as well. (Even List of unusual topics survived AfD, and List of people by name survived for four years.) The reason I nominated now, as I hope my nomination made clear (if not, I'll happily reword it) is that I know someone will nominate it when they stumble across it, and it seems better to me to get the arguments out of the way before editors have spent time adding names & referencing it. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet sure about your objections. Will give it some thought. However, I do not think there will be a problem listing such individuals as Mr. Hitler on such an "honor roll." Any listing would, of course, have to be supported by legitimate sources, as is the policy with any article on Wikipedia. So I'm not sure what your concern is? Cheers. --Ludvikus 14:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this, hence the "procedural-abstain" - As I said on your talk page, there's certainly a potentially valid list to be made here. My concern is that any valid list is likely to be swamped by repeated "William Shakespeare was an anti-semite"/"No he wasn't" style add-remove-add edit warring, and endless BLP violations as people add every politician they dislike. (See the recent history of Alan Hays for a vision of the floodgate that's likely to open.) The "is anti-Israel the same as anti-semitic" question will also likely be permanently edit-warred over as well. — iridescent (talk to me!) 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the qualifications I've just posted on the Page. Perhaps that will give you more confidence in the integrity of Wikipedians, in humanity in general as Cyberspace evolves. Your neutrality apparently does not apply to your general faith in human nature, or in the educational role of Wikipedia. Why not help find a way to insure that the Wikispace I've created does not get abused? Instead you manifest a fear of trolls - and wish to give in to them. Ludvikus 14:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the qualification you've added - and agree that deletion is itself a WP:CRYSTAL style assumption of future trolling. I also agree that if the page can be kept "clean" and only undisputed cases kept, it passes WP:USEFUL, which in my opinion is a perfectly valid criteria. My concerns are the trouble involved in keeping it accurate & clean - look at the history & talk pages of articles like List of bisexual people for a glimpse of how this is likely to go. (That's not a "delete" argument - LoBP survived it's own (staggeringly foul-tempered) AfD which was based on the same arguments.) — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. I now support the deletion. My intent was to create a Category, not an Article. That I've done. So this should be a Quick delete. Ludvikus 15:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close, per author Ludvikus withdrawing article. Mandsford 15:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy. Now we can fight over whether category:Notable or notorious antisemites is needed! -- RHaworth 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Same author is posting other similar Halo 3 articles, and needs to be stopped quickly. NawlinWiki 16:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halo 3 skulls[edit]

Halo 3 skulls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article that may be original research. Also, Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. Contested WP:PROD. Moonriddengirl 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is in need of serious cleanup, which isn't cause for deletion. However, Original Research is. The author appears to discuss and analyze how to find these skulls. Even if, for the sake of argument, the skulls and the methods of obtaining them are notable (which they aren't), there aren't sources that say so - thus, it's WP:OR. The tone borders on the nonsensical, in that the another author angrily rebuts assertions on Youtube as to the accuracy of the method provided. Finally, the skulls are already referenced as a game mechanic in the Halo 3 article itself (see also Halo 3). That reference provides sufficient detail for what is, by all appearances, a non-notable game mechanic. A merge, in this instance, would not be of benefit. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Halo 3 main page could do with a small section on the Skulls, but I don't there they are notable enough to have their own article with in-depth guides as to how find them. I don't believe WP:OR is very relevent as there are several guides on the internet that show you how to find these skulls. It doesn't cite references though. Regardless, delete as it is not notable and wikipedia is not a gameplay guide.Darkcraft 14:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Roe[edit]

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

Delete. Contested prod. Subject streaked at a rugby match in 1982. And that's it really. Looking at the other articles in the streakers category, all of them were notable for other reasons apart from streaking. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. While I was all set to !vote "Delete" based on WP:BIO and its note about single-event fame, my google check seems to suggest that there is an unusual level of notability attached to Roe's streaking. Accordingly, I've revamped the article somewhat with inline citations. Conversation about her seems to be ongoing, with articles as recently as this year listing her among the best known streakers of all time. I did not cite because of redundancy additional support for her notability at iafrica and the independent. Roe also seems to have been featured in a couple of television shows and to have translated (?) a book on the topic. Given her evident notability, if the article itself is not kept, I believe it should redirect to Streaking#Streaking_in_Sports (with perhaps a small expansion of the sentence about her there, such as full date). The name seems like a plausible search term to me, even if it is determined that the person does not need an individual bio, perhaps because, as BLP says, "Cover the event, not the person". (Although I'll note that covering the person would have eliminated this event. :D) --Moonriddengirl 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but the subject appears to be notable. Her actions were cited twice by the BBC and also in other publications. That means that she is covered (no pun intended) by reliable sources. She is not notable for anything else other than this event. But evidently it was a pretty big deal if people are still talking about it 25 years after it happened. Kudos to Moonriddengirl for sourcing the article. --Cyrus Andiron 16:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks. :) I was quite surprised how much there was out there. --Moonriddengirl 00:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I was surprised to see this prodded, although there were a few speedy-deletable articles linked to the book shop mentioned in the article, and I'm surprised to see this AfD'd. Roe is the most famous streaker in British sporting history, and was nationally famous at the time (and still a recognizable name today) due to both TV and newspaper coverage. What's more, the assertion of notability is backed up by references. Roe is single-handedly responsible for what a highly-respected serious newspaper considers one of the top 100 most memorable sporting moments. A decision to keep seems to me a straightforward one.--Michig 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep it seems that enough news sources noticed this incident deeming it somewhat notable, however strange it seems.Iamchrisryan 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So it will never become a featured article, who cares. Burntsauce 21:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Corvus cornix 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most notable incidents of its kind. Who can remember the score? However, many people remember Erica Roe. The incident is still talked and written about 20+ years later as this google archive search indicates[30]. --Malcolmxl5 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment The subject has "demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources." per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 22:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which guidelines is that from, CC? --Malcolmxl5 22:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Corvus cornix 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. snowball keep, which Colonel Warden might have meant. Joe 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussy how it's done but the AFD tag should be removed immediately as this is an obvious Keep and keeping the discussion open is a time-waster. Note that the list of reasons for Speedys is not exhaustive. Colonel Warden 12:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CC. --Malcolmxl5 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. There are little gems like that squirrelled away all over the place.  :) Corvus cornix 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The most famous streaker ever, in Britain anyway, and an incident which caused massive and lasting press interest. Seeking to have it deleted under WP:BLP1E seems an attempt at surrealist humour. Nick mallory 00:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick M (with whom I had an edit conflict - followed by a "database locked" message. sigh.). Not just a streaker (it would be a definite deletion candidate in that case), but possibly the world's most famous streaker - I live at the other end of the planet and I've heard of her. One event-notability, maybe - but the degree of notoriety/fame as a result is sufficient for this one to be a keeper, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of media coverage, remains a well-known name in the UK. Espresso Addict 07:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Can't stand the woman and I'm fed up of hearing about her, but she is, unfortunately notable. Corvus Cornix is wrong to cite WP:BLP1E as although all the coverage stems from that one event they are not all from that one event. They all reference that for this is what she is famous for; but because of that she has often been quoted by the media, has appeared in game shows and is considered a d-list celebrity. B1atv 07:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to keeps. Some good arguments, and the article has been improved slightly, but I'm still arguing for delete. Yes she should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but not in her own article. At best this is a redirect and merge to Streaking. Yes she is mentioned in the press, but rarely in an article actually about her. It's either an article about streaking which she is briefly mentioned in, or a "craziest moments in sport" article which, again, she is mentioned fleetingly in. And the coverage isn't that widespread. 256 unique Google hits for "erica roe" streaker, 159 for "erica roe" streak and 119 for "erica roe" streaking. And only 274 for plain old"Erica Roe", and this includes other Erica Roes. Not exactly widespread. Plus a lot of these are trivial. If she had gone on to be a minor celebrity or some kind of authority on streaking yes, but she is a sweet potato farmer in Portugal. One mildly notable event does not equal an encyclopedia article. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment A lot of people seem to be voting on the basis that they have heard of her. Having heard of someone, and them being sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia are two different things. Stu ’Bout ye! 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'd never heard of her before I sat down to this AfD. :) In terms of WP:BIO, she has been "the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The depth is not substantial; however, she does have "multiple independent sources". Looking at the specific examples, it is true that she is known in the context of a particular event, however, she has "Demonstrable wide name recognition from reliable sources" and "Widespread coverage over time in the media". WP:BLP in expanding the single-event exclusion says, "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I think given her television appearances and interviews and the fact that this single event apparently launched a short-lived modeling career, we can judge that she is not "low profile". She may not be strongly notable, but I believe (as I said above) that she is notable enough to sustain the article about her. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. She is mentioned in reliable, secondary sources, but those articles aren't about her, but the subject in general. Most have a couple of sentences on her. And I can't see how just over 200 Google hits is widespread coverage, especially when most are trivial and the reliable sources aren't about her specifically. On the television appearances, are we sure she actually appeared on 80's Mania and After They Were Famous? I'm not so sure, they sound like clip shows to me, where they would have just showed her streaking, rather than her actually appearing on the show. On her modelling career, you make an excellent point, it was short lived and she only made eight grand from it. Again, she's certainly notable enough to be mentioned in the streaking article, but doesn't deserve her own. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. I'll grant that she's not Lady Godiva. :) But to me widespread is less about the # of google hits and more about the breadth of press coverage. The sources currently in the article span at least 7 years (a couple didn't have publication dates). We've got the BBC, three different newspapers & Manchester Confidential which I can't precisely pin down. :) As I mentioned above, there was another Independent article and even coverage out of Africa which I didn't incorporate because of redundancy. I don't interpret "widespread coverage" as hundreds of hits, but as coverage across several separate reliable sources. According to the notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content". In this case, none is--except perhaps on the tv show. (I didn't add that myself for precisely the reason you mention; I don't personally know how extensive her involvement was. For a similar reason, I didn't add her book credit. Translated? What? :)) Her coverage is more substantial in some of the sources than others (certainly in the case of her personal interview), but I do not personally perceive it as trivial. --Moonriddengirl 11:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. "After They Were Famous" was not a 'clip show' - it featured documentaries on people who were more famous in the past to see what they're doing these days. If I remember correctly (I wasn't an avid watcher of the programme), each subject was covered for about 10 minutes in total. It was also on a national terrestrial channel. It's unlikely that anyone who doesn't merit an article here would have been sufficiently famous to have a programme about them broadcast nationally at 10 o'clock at night.--Michig 11:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment. There are some details of the show here.--Michig 12:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Passing WP:BIO is sufficient for inclusion, and Erica Roe passes WP:BIO. Surely it's as simple as that?--Michig 20:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wasn't even born when she streaked and I know who she is. She also seems to get interviewed every time there's a tv programme/newspaper article about streaking, so I think that, while her notability stems from the streak, she must have something else about her too. Red Fiona 16:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She became a considerable public figure following the streaking and an archetype of 'the streaker'. Sam Blacketer 11:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan John Walter[edit]

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

I seriously doubt the content of the article. It is unreferenced and one would assume that Google would turn up a slew of references for one of the 500 wealthiest people under 30. Can't find any trace of his purported association to Mika or Scooch, or his cameo for the Extras (the provided reference does not mention him). The creator of the article is Rw121 (talk · contribs) and that suggests conflict of interest problems. Moreover, this editor has recently created an attack page. Pascal.Tesson 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, claims seem to lack reliable sources, no mention in the one citation. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything to support any of these claims, not even something to suggest that the Observer has listed the 500 wealthiest people under 30, let alone mentioned this individual. (500 seems an odd number, very large -- most of these things are "30 under 30", say.) I tried a number of different Google searches and found zero. Doesn't meet WP:Verifiability. Accounting4Taste 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:V... seems to be a vanity article. Arakunem 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - seems bogus and the one reference isn't verifiable by the link supplied. Iamchrisryan 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, likely a hoax. NawlinWiki 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Boy[edit]

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

Pseudo-famous gay pop disco artist who has written most of the article himself. He has had one hit single which has allegedly got to number three on the music retailer CDON's singles singles list. Other major online music stores, like Ginza and Discshop don't appear to carry the single, and there is no mention of a placing on Swedish hit charts. The article claims that the hit in question, Drama Queen, "was part of Melodifestivalen 2006", but in which way is unclear. The Swedish language article claims that Bimbo Boy's contribution to Melodifestivalen "was one of the last 100 songs to be rejected" is very unimpressive considering that even fairly major contestants in Melodifestivalen aren't all that famous to others than diehard fans. The sources provided do focus somewhat on Bimbo Boy himself, but they strike me as being rather trivial and how he got on IMDB is a mystery. I get the impression that Bimbo Boy is a performer that is on the verge of notability, but hasn't really gotten there yet. Peter Isotalo 12:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - not notable, vanity. I don't think he is even on the verge of notability as mentioned above.Iamchrisryan 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. He's cute, but that doesn't make him notable :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article was deleted on svwiki. /SvNH 21:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not quite meeting WP:BIO. Bfigura (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have notified Dennis at his talkpage, and I've sent him a message about the AfD to his account at Qruiser, QX's gay online community. Peter Isotalo 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 09:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New English School (Jordan)[edit]

New English School (Jordan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a non notable private school. A google search confirms the school exists but nothing to suggest it is notable. This is a very poor article which is completely unsourced - even the "website" link goes only to a spam-registration page rather than the school. B1atv 12:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are only 11 schools in Jordan with articles on Wikipedia. We need to have a selection of schools from different countries to counterbalance the current Anglo-American dominance. This school clearly has some notable elements and a Google search reveals further interesting achievements such as this page from the Jordan Times. The article currently reads as though it's been lifted from the school prospectus. The article needs improving and referencing not deleting. Dahliarose 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cleaned up quite a bit. Still needs work and sourcing though. --Bfigura (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It clearly establishes a level of notability sufficient for inclusion. -- DS1953 talk 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC
  • Keep. the article has been cleaned to a certain level, wikipedia might not need this article in its database, and it will not certainly be included in any notable encyclopedia, yet, users searching for information regarding this topic, will find this article quite helpful. Efforts to improve it have increased over the last few days, several editors especially Bfigura, TeaDrinker , and Dahliarose have been active in the area of lifting unsourced material and ad statements. The article also serves a bigger purpose as it describes a typical private jordanian school. Please note that some sources have been added to the article.--GermanCorrecter 16:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A unique program and curriculum that clearly satisfies Wikipedia notability standards. Alansohn 06:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn, the program and curriculum meet our notability standards. RFerreira 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Karl casanova[edit]

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

Reason: non-notable biography written by subject. This has been speedied twice, but I have listed it here because the author keeps removing the db-bio template. HeartofaDog (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was: Speedily deleted. Little to no claim of notability, lacks context/unreferenced, created under a garbage title. Obvious consensus to delete. - Mike Rosoft 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slkdjflsjf[edit]

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

Can't seem to find a mention of this person (ali abbas) anywhere (except for information about a 13 y/o boy with the same name). Neither could I find anything about either of the plays he has supposedly written. Infact the whole thing seems to stink of WP:HOAX ARendedWinter 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Vandalism. --Endless Dan 13:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Plain nonsense. Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • asdfkladf, er, Delete. Admin was right to bring to AFD, but there isn't a single source to back this up. --Dhartung | Talk 16:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A number of Google searches can't verify any of these assertions; fails WP:Verifiability. Accounting4Taste 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bordering on Speedy. Looks like one big test edit, especially with the title like it is... Arakunem 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. vandal too lazy to create a hoaxy title and settled for this one.--Lenticel (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ste. Anne de Beaupre School[edit]

Ste. Anne de Beaupre School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school. No assertion of notability. Emeraude 10:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - and expand Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of notability so ever, claim what this school does not.--Victor falk 17:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article does not do much more than state the schools existence at the moment - I did a search which revealed pretty much no sources or notability to expand the article with; I will make a view of keep if anyone else is more successful. Camaron1 | Chris 20:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a directory or a list of stuff. Chris 21:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Quezon City article and improve the section about education there. Burntsauce 21:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Burntsauce, this article should be expanded at Quezon City and then broken out when it makes sense to. RFerreira 19:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:LOCAL.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per our bastardized school and locality guidelines. Silensor 05:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Eisen[edit]

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

The article is on a man whose ventures never seem to have been notable. The article claimed (until I took it out) he was the CEO of Lipton which appears to be totally false as Lipton seems to not have CEOs since it has been owned by a bigger company since then. It also claims he was a vice-president of RCA and a pioneer of cable TV but nothing supports that. His marketing firm doesn't seem to be notable as it promotes only further non-notable products. He owns a local mattress sales company (see Sleep Tech Inc. and the related AFD) but nothing beyond that. I don't see any evidence in here that his ventures every became notable in any way and I can't find any support for the claims in the article (especially the more ludacris ones which I removed. In addition, there are conflict of interest concerns as the creator and maintainer of the article is the grandson of the subject. Metros 10:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Definitely a COI NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't substantiate his association with most of the companies mentioned, doesn't meet WP:Verifiability, WP:COI problems. Sleep-Tech doesn't even seem to have its own website, just part of someone else's portal... now that's non-notable. Accounting4Taste 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepNotable person, and Sleep-Tech has two websites that i know of, so you are lieing right there. www.sleeptechstores.com and www.sleeptechmattress.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by NightRider63 (talk • contribs)
      • Comment Thanks for pointing that out, and I'm surprised not to have found them -- they must not be indexed on Google very well. Possibly it was the hyphen. Anyway, a "chain" with only two stores isn't really notable IMHO. By the way, we assume good faith when referring to the work of other editors on Wikipedia, and rarely, if ever, suggest that they are "lieing". Accounting4Taste 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is notable about him? And what sources do you have to support the notability? Metros 19:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment That's Simple. Great question. CEO of a mattress retailer and manufacturer, past President of Lipton, past president of 3 companies. Metros has been spamming me for the past week, deleting EVERY page. This isnt hard guys, this is a personal attack that he has taken to the next level.--NightRider63 19:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have anything that proves he was anything what you say? He's CEO of the mattress retailer, but that's a local store basically. Past president of Lipton? Prove it. Past president of three companies? What three companies? What proof do you have of it? And how notable are those companies? Metros 19:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I cannot find anything to prove notability more than owning two local stores, which I don't find at all notable as far as wikipedia is concerned.Iamchrisryan 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Realized it does not have sources. Speedy Delete. Struck previous comments per this one.--NightRider63 19:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can take care of this yourself by placing {{db-author}} at the top of the page. -- Ben 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank You!--NightRider63 20:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • {{db-author}} speedy deletion declined; edits by others are more than trivial. GRBerry 21:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry about that. -- Ben 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Sc straker 17:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above discussion. Neither notable nor verifiable. I'm sure he's a real gentleman, but sorry, he does not belong in WP. Bearian'sBooties 19:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V and, although a notable topic, consensus is this article needs to be rewritten in its entirety. → AA (talk) — 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Active recall[edit]

Active recall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I'm nominating this article to be deleted because of its unencyclopedic content/style and complete lack of sources. I tagged it to be rewritten on 8 September 2007 and since nothing has been done to improve the article by its original authors since then, I assumed this was the next most logical step. RobertM525 07:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Learning There should be coverage of this principle in the articles on learning, but the author should have at least grabbed another encyclopedia or a psychology book. Notable topic, worthless article. No objection to someone doing a little research and writing a good article. The Learning article is very poorly referenced itself. Edison 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs to be rewritten, but the topic is notable. IP198 19:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thing is, no one was going to rewrite it. So it may as well be deleted until someone feels like writing an article on "active recall" rather than a study guide for one. (I get the feeling this was copied-and-pasted from some outside source, too.) RobertM525 03:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article was created by a banned user. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Mayer[edit]

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

Brought here as a result of a post at WP:ANI. Grade school teacher who lost her job over comments about "honking for peace".. WP:BLP1E would appear to apply. Deiz talk 06:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am absolutely outraged that you dare imply that not considering this article as notable is some kind of symptom of living in a country that's not "democratic enough". Delete per nomination. But what do I know, I'm just a filthy Untermensch. --Agamemnon2 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry about that. --Agamemnon2 11:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - above comment refers in part to a comment posted by Mightyms (talk · contribs), removed per WP:POINT, WP:NOT#SOAPBPOX. Deiz talk 13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep, potentially move to Mayer v. Monroe County, which appears to have moved the goalposts a little bit wrt free speech for public employees. It was denied cert by the Supreme Court, effectively upholding the case law. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. There are a lot of comments of mine about BLP in the page history. I don't feel particularly strongly about it, and editors here appear to be considering the BLP implications.--chaser - t 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry but I must disagree, the WP:BLP1E essay does not apply in this case; the subject is notable. Burntsauce 21:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That section isn't an essay. It's part of the policy.--chaser - t 01:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is both an essay and contested piece of policy which a portion of the community believes should be merged into the notability guideline (also not a policy). Thanks, Burntsauce 17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we're talking past each other. I meant essay in the Wikipedia sense, "not a policy or guideline". In any case, the discussion indicates that there's little disagreement about the thrust of BLP1E. I'm not sure what you mean about the guideline reference. We still follow guidelines, even if we're more easygoing about making exceptions to them.--chaser - t 17:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is notable because of the change in legal position, and I just adjusted the quote to remove the remaining one or two problematic words, without changing the meaning. I additionally agree with Chaser's previous changes in the article. BLP was indeed a concern, and has now been addressed. DGG (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep incident is notable, individual less so...but lacking an incident page, this will suffice. JJL 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form. Notable enough but in an ideal world would be renamed and rewritten to conform to BLP- no prejudice against the nomination, which is technically correct, but per the much-abused WP:IAR it's better to have an article that doesn't quite conform to policy but doesn't otherwise do any harm than no article at all. Kudos to whomever removed Mightyms' steaming pile of insulting ill-informed sh... erm, comment. Badgerpatrol 02:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • move & redirect to Mayer v. Monroe County, the case is notable, she is not. Pete.Hurd 04:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move I agree with the nominating editor, Deiz, in that WP:BLP1E does apply and this woman clearly is only notable for this one incident, however it seems that the case itself is notable due to the change in legislation, so perhaps move it to the relevant court case name. Phgao 10:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or (merge and redirect) - subject article is WP:BLP1E --Sc straker 17:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom:

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

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eros Day[edit]

Eros Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Misleadingly described as a holiday, and dressed up with bogus historical context (and bogus astronomical context), this Susan Block promotion describes a public party ($75 admission). L.A. Weekly source, but the event is not discernably more notable than a typical club event, and the article is advertising. edg ☺ ★ 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It may be hot spam, but it's still spam. --Victor falk 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional of a non-notable event. Over half the article is unrelated lore about Eros or eroticism. --Dhartung | Talk 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, or no consensus defaulting to keep. Either way. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand words[edit]

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

This is a dictionary, plain and simple. Wikipedia articles are not dictionaries. The project that actually has the goal of creating dictionaries already has Category:New Zealand English and wikt:Appendix:New Zealand English vocabulary (crossed-out because it is no longer linked), linked-to directly from our New Zealand English article. Computer not responding 10:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It would be better if this is done on Wikitionary--Lenticel (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason this can't exist on Wiktionary and as an article. I disagree that it's merely a dictionary or otherwise violative of a Wikiprinciple. The purpose seems to be to describe words and phrases that are unique to New Zealand (or to NZ and neighboring Australia), rather than to serve as a place where one would "look up" definitions. What a culture considers important is often reflected in the language. Mandsford 15:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article's purpose is really "to describe words and phrases that are unique to New Zealand", then that's the very reason it should be in Wiktionary, not here. Wiktionary describes words and we describe concepts behind words, 'tis my impression after reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Computer not responding 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. —gadfium 18:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge into New Zealand English. Grutness...wha? 00:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful glossary of New Zealand words. Needs referencing though. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As creator of this article, I say Delete and definitely do not Smerge into any other article. I created this article only as a means of removing this list of unreferenced stuff from important articles (like New Zealand English), where it lowered the tone and reduced the quality. Not worth keeping, and this sort of list just invites poor-quality additions ad infinitum. Kahuroa 02:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though the creator of the article wants to delete it, he or she is only one of several people who have worked on it in the past 18 months, with 150-200 edits along the way. Mandsford 18:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems useful, and New Zealand English is already long enough without having this added to it. --Helenalex 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think this article has potential, and Wikipedia has other articles on regional vocabulary, e.g. Australian English vocabulary. With some work, this could be an encyclopaedic entry about the unique expressions of Kiwi English rather than an interesting list of questionable merit. - Axver 10:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into New Zealand English or keep it if it is expanded with more sections. Like history, etc Halfpast6 07:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ustaše without prejudice to User:Brkic recreating in user space for later review/RfC on the subject. Article history available upon polite request. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ustaši[edit]

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

This is a WP:POVFORK, created by Brkic (talk · contribs), currently blocked for 58RR at Ustaše (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and incivility. The story goes like this:

  • Brkic apparently tries to convey the message that Ustaše have noble origins of anti-Turkish insurgents from 17th century
  • After revert-warring fails at that article, he creates this one.
  • As the Ustaše article acknowledges in the lede, the origin of the name actually does come from "ustaš", an archaic word for "insurgent" or "upraiser"
  • To prove that, he uses two sources from 1888 and 1900, which could plausibly use the word indeed, as at that time it did mean "insurgent". I'd call that quote mining. I can't find any other mention at GBooks and GScholar of the word other than the WWII context.
  • The third source, "Karl Kaser - POPIS LIKE I KRBAVE 1712. GODINE (Zagreb 2003) p 51-374" is available online [31] and does not mention "ustaši" nor the events in question.
  • Now, the rest of the information from the article probably has some basis: the persons mentioned do exist and they lived at that time. The events in question, however, are likely just part of the greater Habsburg-Ottoman war 1683-1699, supposedly the Great Turkish War. And they were just side events of the great battle.

In sum, I propose that the article is deleted and redirected to Ustaše; the few valuable pieces of information therein might find some place in History of Croatia, but those are just another skirmishes within a big war AFAICT, and it's really difficult to find a context to merge into. The rest is POV-pushing. Duja► 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect, per nom. Valuable information if any should be integrated into Uskoks--Victor falk 17:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is completely misleading. First of all the word "Ustasha" was common for "uprisers", and common not only in Croatia but elsewhere in the Yugoslav lands. The reason why this fairly common word has been completely pushed out from the Serb-Croat vocabulary, is the actions of the Croatian Patriotic Ustashas during World War II and the bad connotations it automatically attracts. The point of this article seems to be in bad faith. Also, there is absolutely no necessity to create an independent article on such matter - there are corresponding ones that should contain the info: Uskoks, Ustashas, Serbian Uprising,... --PaxEquilibrium 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, this is the story about the original Ustaša army of the 17th century We cannot delete this article because another army under the same name did this or that, and lost a war in the 20th century. As in the Military history of the United States many articles are needed to enlighten things. The two Croatian names Ustaši and Domobrani are not a 20th century invention. Both are found in the famous Military history of Croatia.

Domobrani or Imperial Croatian Home Guard are Croatian soldiars 1868 - 1918

Ustaši or Ustaše are Croatian soldiars 1683 - 1689

These are historic Croatian military names. That both where reused in the 20th century !

Now the sources mentioned so far.

The first two are ordinary old history books referenced to, in all works on the topic.

The third source, mention "the events in question"

On page 10 look for, "dragovoljacki odredi 1684" "volunteer squads 1684"

The book also list the Croatian soldiers of the time such as,

  • Prince Marko Kovacevic page 189
  • Prince Ivan Drakulic page 75
  • Prince Orlovic page 265
  • Castellan Milan Marinkovic page 155
  • Castellan Petar Vrkljan page 255
  • Kapitain Stojan Kovacevic son of Commander Dujan Kovacevic page 255
  • Kapitain Ivan Mesic brother of Commander Marko Mesic page 163
  • Corporal Miko Sertic page 164
  • Corporal Jure Gaier page 164

The Croatian Ustaša soldiers were organised into the Croatian Military Frontier - Croatian Krajina in 1712

You fail to comment on their prior name Uskoks (Jumpers)

This name however was not reused by the Croatian soldiers in the 20th century Is that way ?

If you dont like President Bush you cannot dislike everyone named Bush or say it's a "archaic word" for a plant. That's disrespectful !

There is nothing to be done about this historical facts we must accept them.

In sum, this completly unbiased and comprehensive artical about the original Croatian Ustasa soliders 1683 - 1689 needs to be further upgraded and not mixed with or to be deleted and redirected to the serbian Ustaše article.

As you have vel understood, this "new" info vil reaper in many articles in many forms all around the net.

By the way here are som pictures of British and Croatian Commanders in the Crimean War (1853–1856)[32]

That's a long time ago, before NATO. Hope that doesnt bother you to ? --Brkic 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of contention here is the article title, and your behaviour to push it through by all means possible. Now, which 20th century source uses the term "ustaši" for the 17th century insurgents? There's no evidence whatsoever that they called themselves like that, or that they were collectively called like that at the time, or by 20th century historians. Like I said, the term is used for any insurgents (against Turks, in the context) in both Serbian and Croatian languages, as can be seen in this 1946 reprint: "Nevesinje (Herzegovinian rebellion) 1875... the Turkish squad went from Pišče to replace Bezuje squad. They were intercepted by ustaši: ... Mira Gagović". Or this 1929 paper: "Miloš Milutina Lakićevića, carpenter from Trpeza, ustaš of Toplica [uprising] from 1917".
The events described in the article are also described here, under B.3. No mentioning of "ustaši" either. A suitable place for the material might be e.g. under Military Krajina#After the Great Turkish War and Treaty of Karlowitz section. I still assert that the "ustaši" naming is only your construction and original research. No one here has a problem with describing valid historic events. We do have a problem with your insistence to name it as you wish and include it into inappriate places. Duja► 07:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Comment

I am not familiar with the serbian cyrillic letters in your links. The 20th century Yugoslav (serbian) historians had the same problem as you have, to distinguish between the events. They simply wrote another name Uskoks instead of Ustaši describing the 17th century events, referred to.

To understand why the names Ustaši and Domobrani were reused by some Croatians in the 20th century we need to know their historical use.

All Uskoks actives ended long before the Ustaša actives of the 17th century begun.

You your self now admit that terme is not a 20th century invention And yes it was used by the Montenegrians fighting the turks in 1711 [33] Your 20th century historians are quoted there.

You don't believe my 19th century historians because your 20th century historians are not clear on this. We cannot subscribe the 17th century events to the Uskoks, falsifying history out of Ustaša phobia

Why do you think the author of this[34] article uses a capital letter for the term Ustaši ? "Hercegovački ustanak 1875-1878"

It's because Ustaši is the name of the 1875 to 1878 squad he is describing.

Just like Ustaši is the name of the 1683 - 1689 squad historian Lopasić[35] is describing in 1888. This is NO exclusive 20th century name. The name was generally used by the anti turk movement and later reused in the 19th and 20th century.

You want it to be a exclusive 20th century movement.

In order to prevent me from writing an article about the Croatian anti Turkish movment of the 17th century

My unbiased article if you dont punk it up with your 20th century horror show will be a about the Croatian anti Turkish movement of the 17th century.

You already have your unhistorical article Ustaše. No offense, I would have done a better work.

Nicknames of British Army Units here[36]. I'll spare you for the American nicknames.

1054 ?

--Brkic 14:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to agree that "ustaši" is (one of) generic term(s) for 16-19th century insurgents (against Turks), regardless of the area. Now, according to our naming conventions, article titles should reflect the reader's expectations and be brought in proper context, specifically "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?". For example, the vast majority of Google scholar search results uses "ustasi" in WWII context, suggesting it's a plausible search term for ustaše rather than for 1683 Lika rebellion. Now, can we amicably come to resolution that you put the said interesting material into one of Military Frontier, Croatian Krajina, Croatia in the Habsburg Empire, Great Turkish War, wherever is best, and where it could work better in a context? Our historic coverage of those events is fairly weak. The entire confrontation you encountered here was because your insistence on the term (rather than on contents) was perceived as trolling by other editors. We do have policies such as assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers which perhaps weren't followed by the fellow editors, but I must admit you weren't overly tactful either. Duja► 15:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree with you at all.

It should be in the lede, a first sentences.

Like it is in this Slovenian version of Wikipedia [37].

Quotation:

Ustaši so bili južni Slovani, ki so se bojevali proti vdoru turkov od 14. do 16. stoletja.

Translation:

Ustaši where southern Slavs, that fought against the turks from 14th to 16th century.

Or as it also is in the Italian version of Wikipedia [38].

Quotation:

Il termine ùstascia già usato dagli slavi balcanici per indicare coloro che lottavano contro i turchi

Translation:

The term ustaši already used by the balkan slavs to indicate those who fought against the Turks

Those are unbiased and comprehensive ledes on the Ustasi subject.

It should be like that in the english lede to.

This version should be the most accurate one.

As it stands, it jumps right into the 20th century.

You deleted my lede, restore it !

Am I getting truog to you ?

--Brkic 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. DS 14:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Varazdin Massacre[edit]

This is an unreferenced hoax, likely created by a vandal user. Like Croatian sources themselves confirm: Varaždinski dani rata, Prof. dr. sc. Božidar Kliček (in Croatian), pretty much everything that happened in Varaždin, in the northwest Croatia during the war was attack of Croatian forces to Yugoslav army barracks and eventual surrender/retreat of the latter. See Battle_of_the_Barracks#North Croatia. Actually, I'm thinking of CSD, though I'm not sure which one would apply. Duja► 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirected as nominator has merged material, requiring retention of source article per GFDL. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primula Susan Rollo[edit]

Primula Susan Rollo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wife of David Niven who died in an unusual accident. Not much else notable about her. Clarityfiend 07:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the article on her husband - there her unusual death is already mentioned in the "Marriages" section. Computer not responding 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, standard practise for non-notable immediate relatives of notable people. cab 08:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've merged her info to David Niven. Clarityfiend 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. GRBerry 16:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atmack[edit]

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

Web based company with a puported 2 employees. Contested prod of company that is clearly not-notable, has no news articles and fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. No notability sources offered in the article and no reliable ones can be found Peripitus (Talk) 07:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No reliable sources, and Google doesn't turn anything further up. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - per nom. No secondary sources, no notability. Rgds, --Trident13 17:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to The Cooters. — Edokter • Talk • 23:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newt Rayburn[edit]

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

Been tagged Orphan since December 2006 and tagged Unreferenced since January 2007. Most info is in The Cooters article. Having been tagged since 2006 and nothing done with the article, it's NN apparently to any one. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 07:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, merge per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 23:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — it's clear that an article about Cultural influence of Stephen King would be a good one. This is not it. This is an unsourced list of trivia. Even the "keep" arguments acknowledge that this needs sourcing badly. I suggest that people arguing for retention work on fixing it up; articles can only persist under the "keep and cleanup" argument once or twice. --Haemo 05:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to Stephen King[edit]

List of cultural references to Stephen King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is a cluttered trivial unsourced list of mentions. They don't show notability or any reason why they should exist here. There is a decent sized section on the Stephen King article already, which does a fine job explaining things. Stephen King is notable himself: but a list of everytime he is mentioned isn't notable. A prose is much better than a massive list that never ends. As a note: a prod was on the article: but because I was stalked, it was removed. RobJ1981 06:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was i who removed the prod tag, and I did it in patrolling prod. I patrol prod every day or two, as I have the chance, to rescue a few articles--& speedy those meriting it, such as G10s and copyvios which are there by inadvertence. I am obviously going to look at every cultural references and related article deletion by any process. Stalking would be if I followed around someone's unrelated articles that I wouldn't otherwise comment on. What I said in removing the prod, is that it would obviously be contested, and should better go to AfD. I should mention that following that, the ed above made 2 successive attempts to change the article to a redirect to King, and refused discussion of it. I do not know why this was done instead of just bringing it here, and seeing the consensus. But I'm glad it's here, for this is the proper place. I'll comment later on the merits. . DGG (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Seriously, what's the point of this? Rocket000 10:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, this list does need to be sourced. That is the main problem with it right now. Stephen King is notable, so an article that deals with the numerous culture references relating to him should be inherently notable. Next, quoting from WP:LIST, an informative list should be organized by theme. This particular list is separated into references from television, film, music, comics, games, and books. Additionally, it has a lead section that explains where the references are from. It is admittedly weak on criteria for inclusion and needs to be alphabetized, but that is not a reason for deletion. I am a little disconcerted by the fact that the nominator went straight to AFD as opposed to voicing his opinions on the talk page. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Cyrus Andiron 11:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly contest the notion that King's notability is inherited by every time his name or one of his books or something that in the unsourced opinion of an editor might be a reference to him or one of his works. WP:LIST does not excuse lists from meeting all relevant policies and guidelines. The most-perfectly formatted list of, for instance, White Pages listings is still a directory and WP:LIST doesn't save it. This list fails WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR and WP:LIST doesn't save it. Otto4711 19:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Even though it indeed requires referencing, articles like this are exactly the kind of thing Wikipedia excels in. You can either like that or not, but if we delete all the excellent articles on perhaps slightly trivial, but nonetheless interesting topics, not much will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given that you have copied and pasted this comment into multiple AFDs I have to question how much actual consideration you have given to this specific article. Otto4711 18:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, arn't you in the habit of launching large numbers of identikit afds? Artw 20:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I'm in the habit of starting similar, but not word for word identical, AFDs for articles that are of similar poor quality after reviewing the articles and based on the content of the article. As opposed to copying and pasting comments based in generalities. Otto4711 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, source, and I'd recommend a rename to "Cultural References to Stephen King." "List of ~" is sort of redundant in a case like this; it would also encourage expansion of the header section. ◄Zahakiel► 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - directory of loosely-associated items, indiscriminate collection of information and massive trivia dump with a liberal dose of original research. This is an obsessive attempt to capture every time anything refers to King, or something that resembles King, or resembles something that was in King's work or simply says the words "Stephen King." It is not encyclopedic in the slightest that some fictional character or another said "Stephen King" in an episode of a TV show or an issue of a comic book. "A guy said Stephen King on TV" is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. "A character said a line that was also in a Stephen King book so it must be a Stephen King reference" is not a sound basis for an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If it's that important, put it back with the Stephen King article. I'd vote delete, but several editors feel strongly about preserving what looks to be a list of mentions, one-liners and parodies of the master of horror and his works. I think he described this type of obsession in Misery. Mandsford 20:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a page of glorified trivia. Yes, Stephen King is popular, that's why he has his own article, and most of his novels do as well. I have the problem with all the keeps votes basically saying "he is popular, keep this page". This is just trivia that has no place here, and here's a list of 200+ similar articles that have been deleted too. [39] Dannycali 22:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As an indiscriminate, original research list, plain and simple. None of the dot points in the article is covered by in-depth secondary sources. This fails WP:ATRIV, WP:IINFO, and WP:OR horribly. Spellcast 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, the article demonstrates the impressive influence of one of the leading writers of the past half century on culture. I agree with the suggestions above about renaming the article Cultural references to Stephen King and adding additional references. If I have a chance in the next day or so, I'll do a reference search for the article, but in any event, there's no real reason to delete this one. Best regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per usual list reasoning, per Dannycali, per Nom. Make a sub page on King's page...JJJ999 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but for this article I cant say as much specific as usual--I certainly appreciate most of King's works, but I have almost no familiarity with the subsequent works here that refer to them. I assume they're notable, because they all have WP articles. I see they're relevant, since they have quotes supporting the relevance. Since such works usually have discussions and reviews, they're presumably sourcable. The general subject is certainly shown to be notable with sufficient RSs at the end, showing independent notability. One thing I can't say here is ILIKEIT, because I don't particularly. No personal interest, but it seems that other people think his influence notable. so be it. I accept the consensus on that, rather than my own feelings that I couldn't care less about the subject matter. DGG (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the things on the list that reference King or are claimed to reference his work are notable. But they are not notable because they reference King. No one, in thinking about Family Guy or The Tick or ABBA or Ultimate X-Men or Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star is going to think, "oh yes, I remember that show/comic/film, it had a Stephen King reference in it!" If this list were called what it actually is, List of things in which someone says 'Stephen King', even you might have some difficulty supporting it. But because it's dressed up in "popular culture studies clothing" and with your stated bias in favor of pop culture articles, you're for it. Otto4711 12:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Otto, it seems like people see anything with the words "cultural references" or "pop culture" in the title and they instantly vote keep no matter what. Do you realize, the Stephen King article probably had a big list in the first place? This is just a moved section most likely. Why is it so hard to condense and put into prose form? Instead, people just move it to a new article, and it ends up in AFD: where it's kept (and for the most part: the article sits in the cluttered shape after the AFD is over). Perhaps people need to consider making a pop culture Wiki for this content. There is a good percent for these types of articles, so a pop culture wiki would solve these problems. Wikipedia shouldn't be a guide to every trivial mention, period. RobJ1981 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per otto ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa renee[edit]

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

To quote from the article: "...Lisa Renee has been personally prepared, trained and downloaded by Interdimensional beings known as the Melchizedek Guardians through her Council of 12 known to her as the Sirian High Council..". Probably non-notable per WP:BIO, as she only writes a monthly column or two for Planetlightworker.com, and I'm not certain that being able to "...perceive multidimensional realities..." makes one notable. As you may imagine, the article has a verifiability problem too, as it lacks reliable sources. Bfigura (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Would speedy, but there's some assertion of notability, however unusual it may be. Bfigura (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hard to tell what kind of authorities the Melchizedek Guardians would be but they haven't published a lot except through Lisa Renee, so fails WP:Verifiable. Meanwhile, the website seems to offer a thriving market in "instructive" books, etc., and I would also suggest this article would be WP:SPAM. I suppose all this negative energy means I'm going to be forced to remain behind at the Great Ascension... darn it. Accounting4Taste 06:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Scientology. JJL 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like self-promotion to me. -Jmh123 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira 00:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and agree with Jmh123 that this looks like self-promotion. Burntsauce 15:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as vanity. --Tony Sidaway 15:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dondie Bernardino[edit]

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

Non-notable person per WP:BIO. Some assertion of notability through directing youth plays and stage roles, hence the AfD rather than speedy. Still, seems to be a case of Wikipedia is WP:NOT myspace. (Also, no reliable ghits). Bfigura (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom, for the reasons above. --Bfigura (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think amdram counts as notability, there's no references thus not verifiable, and WP:COI problems. I was briefly curious about what "table skirting" might be, but I can control my curiosity in the sake of getting this back to MySpace where it belongs. Accounting4Taste 06:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article has such extraordinary claims about what he's good at. With over 10. Such claims require extraordinary sources, and when I attempted to look him up in a search engine, I get 3 results, a web video and 2 social networking sites (That is, no RS, if he's famous, there should at least be a couple of web mentions). This does not satisfy WP:V and is likely to be a hoax.--Alasdair 08:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The assertion of notability keeps this from Speedy but it is weak at best. My biggest concern is a lack of reliable sources to back up this article - the whole thing is basically WP:OR and reads like a promotional piece if it's not in fact a hoax per Alasdair. Pedro :  Chat  09:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, vanity. Iamchrisryan 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. Two things: I'm from the Philippines, I haven't heard of this guy. Period. --- Tito Pao 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Transfer to Wikipilipinas.--Lenticel (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 09:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. If I were coming across it now with no AfD, I probably would have tagged it for speedy delete as a non notable bio. Vgranucci 02:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per WP:GLACIER. --Howard the Duck 12:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, just non-notable vanity. RFerreira 00:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by mere consensus by WP:HEY. Bearian 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Waterhouse (headmaster)[edit]

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

Subject falls short of WP:BIO. Running schools is not notability & no major contributions to the enduring historical record ExtraDry 03:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. AntiVMan 04:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Please note that this is not a vote and so "per nom" adds nothing to the debate. At present this is a bare minimum article but the subject is highly notable for a number of reasons. It may take some time to improve the article as the appropriate references may not be on line. Public high schools in New South Wales came into existence in 1883 after Henry Parkes's Department of Public Instruction Act of 1880. Up until then secondary education had been largely Church and private proprietory schools. In 1883 eight high schools were established in Sydney and the regions. By 1900 only Maitland and Sydney had survived. This had a lot to do with the quality of those appointed to lead those schools. Waterhouse was the founding Headmaster of Sydney (if only interim until the arrival of Joseph Coates) and then the following year the founding headmaster of Maitland. This alone makes him highly significant in the educational history of NSW. Later in his career he was a long serving successor to Coates at Sydney Boys High School, arguably Sydneys most notable public boys school. Waterhouse is Australian born and was educated at an historic Sydney school, Newington College, and was an MA from the University of Sydney. He is consequently one of the earliest Australian born and educated headmasters of a major school in colonial NSW - if not the first. His own alma mater didn't have an Australian born Headmaster until 1931 and from that time all appointees to headship at Newington were Rhodes Scholars (hence holders of English higher degrees) until 1960. Further investigation of Waterhouse's ornithological and biological activities will also lead to greater notability but this will take some further reading at the Australian Academy of Science. It is time to move on from this never ending, and highly disruptive debate, about the notability of headmasters. Keep John Waterhouse, expand the article and as an example of a random act of kindness offer this notable subject a free hug. Maybe those wishing to delete this article might also spend more time writing and less time calling for deletion. Mitchplusone 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being the headmaster of a school does not make you notable, lets not get sidetracked from that point. He fails WP:N, he is not the subject of any third-party source. The article lacks any serious WP:RS. Stop trying to create a walled garden for Newington College, and start writing an encyclopedia. Twenty Years 08:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have seen no precedent of inherent notability for high school principals or headmaster, even if they were the first one for a school. There is nothing wrong with people nominating articles about headmasters for deletion, and there is nothing " highly disruptive" about doing so. The refs neither prove notability nor satisfy WP:BIO. Ref 1 is not about the subject of this article and only says "John Waterhouse deputized for him at Sydney" Ref 2 and Ref 3 are about his son. Notability does not percolate back to ancestors. Ref 2 makes bare passing reference of John Waterhouse. Ref 3 has some brief info about John Waterhouse, which it says came from bio notes "contributed by the Waterhouse family" indicating a lack of reliable and independent information. As a bio article, it is unencyclopedic, lacking even his years of birth and death. Reliable and independent secondary sources are needed to support the several assertions made here in support of his notability. I strongly object to making Wikipedia a directory of everyone who served as high school principals, unless their contributions were such as to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison 14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. It seems the references are pertaining to his son, and he is only briefly mentioned, which I don't think makes him notable. Iamchrisryan 20:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not disputing that the article and references need improvement - I have said that but just because the references aren't online doesn't say they don't exist. There are many thinner wiki articles in existence. His notablility is not inherent - it relates to his ability to get up and running an important regional high school when many others were failing and in being an Australian first. Mitchplusone 23:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The references are mostly about Coates and Waterhouse's son. However, Waterhouse is certainly worth a mention in the articles on Maitland Boys High School and Sydney Boys High School respectively. I would reconsider if Mitchplusone discovers more information.Capitalistroadster 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Compare Waterhouse to Ralph Townsend and he looks just as notable. Maybe I should have done more work on this article before posting it but he is certainly notable in the history of NSW education. Does it matter if Waterhouse is the primary subject of the references - I don't think so. Waterdanks 04:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have used the High Centenary History as a reference having been advised by the State Library of NSW of its extensive coverage of Waterhouse. They are emailing me the relevent pages but the "Ask a Librarian Service" takes around ten days so at the rate this debate is going JW may be in the wiki trash bin by then. Waterdanks 08:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 03:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I see no assertion of notability, the references cited all have other people as their subject. WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." with "Sources, defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources...", there is nothing like a secondary source with John Waterhouse as it's subject, he's not notable. Pete.Hurd 04:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is nothing short of schoolcruft. This persons bio was created primarily to raise the profile of Newington College on wikipedia (someone might make an essay on it: "NewingtonCruft"). On a serious note, the person fails WP:BIO, WP:N (no sources stated have Waterhouse as their primary subject). Waterhouse is little more than a sidenote in the history of Newington, and little more than your average person. Pure cruft. Twenty Years 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (changed vote) per AdB entry. Twenty Years 13:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Merge to Newington College or perhaps a subarticle on its headmasters. The subject doesn't seem quite notable enough to have their own article in WP, but he is notable enough through the school to be included in there somewhere. Deletion of the article won't be helpful for either party. JRG 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep Headmasters of notable schools are notable, and his is apparently one of the the most important in his country. We've done that consistent with the major UK public schools and it applies here do. He doesn't have to have a earth--shaking effect on the course of history--just be important in the context of australian education. And that he is. I note that thee has previously been a rash of attempts to delete articles on everyone connected with this college, judging by this recordDGG (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - As headmaster of 2 of the most notable schools in Australia. Read the article's first sentence. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 06:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That is not a neutral point of view & he does not pass WP:BIO there are hundreds of headmasters all around australia. We dont need an article for every headmaster that has ever been. ExtraDry 16:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the schools are really notable, then we should and do, per precedents in all other countries.DGG (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed the word "notable" from the opening sentence so as to remove any suggestion that it isn't neutral. Would someone like to create a Waterhouse Family article as John's father, his uncles, his son and his cousins are all given articles in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. There would be a bit of work involved but I'm sure that those campaigning for a keep on the Hawke family and Willesee family would support this new article (avoiding any claims of AfD Cruft) and John Waterhouse could be in it even if he is given the flick from this article. Archifile 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Running with this suggestion I have created two new pages for members of the Waterhouse family Jabez Waterhouse and Joseph Waterhouse (minister) and will do a few more as time permits. Individually or as a group the extended Waterhouse family are notable in the Methodist church, education and science. At this stage I have just linked them with 'See also' sub-headings. This exercise will take some time to complete and to find all references, although the ADB has been used for the first two. John's son, Walter Waterhouse already had a page. I trust the wiki community will allow time for this to happen and not call for deletions in haste. Waterdanks 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Waterhouse family is one hell of a dynasty. George Marsden Waterhouse was the 6th Premier of South Australia and the 7th Premier of New Zealand. Is somone bold enough to create the family page? Waterdanks 04:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - The Australian Dictionary of Biography is not a trivial publication, and he appears to be notable. (I would also note that this AfD is the latest in a long string of bad faith tit-for-tat between editors on the Newington College article.) Orderinchaos 23:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gene Simmons Family Jewels (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 09:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Simmons[edit]

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

Redirect to Gene Simmons Family Jewels. Sophie lacks sufficiently notability to merit her own article. We've redirected it numerous times, but some people keep undoing that and restoring the stub, so we need AfD to settle this. Wryspy 03:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above. AntiVMan 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. JJL 13:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Not really enough content in this article to constitute a page. - Rjd0060 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mease[edit]

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

Non-notable author of a book published by a vanity press. No references cited. Since his book is the only thing that seems to warrant this article, no reviews or any evidence of notability has been given. Deproded by author without explanation. eaolson 03:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would support deletion of this article because of the lack of sources. But might he be notable for being a former mayor of Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania, assuming that this statement has the requisite sources? Computer not responding 04:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Under WP:BIO state legislators and up are eligible. Many people think around 100,000 is a good city population for mayors to start becoming notable, but there isn't consensus for this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, but maybe reformat article to be more about mayor and less about book. AntiVMan 04:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability from third-party sources. Mease's book is self-published. The article is basically a slight rework of his book's listing at Amazon.[40] A Google search shows Mease in a city council dispute over a tax levy. • Gene93k 08:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per Gene93k. -Jmh123 22:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon[edit]

Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Per discussions on the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon talk page, the issue has been brought up as to whether or not the subject is notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. Currently, no reliable sources are cited in the article. Of its 35 provided references, 24 are from nccg.org (a website owned by the founder of the religion), 2 by a site critical of the religion, 8 are from groups.mns.com, and 1 is from Geocities. Likewise, two newspapers are mentioned, but only small Swedish newspapers within the sects' vicinity. I recommend a strong delete, unless more reliable resources can be found. In that case, the article can then be recreated and rewritten with these reliable sources as a basis. The subject seems to only be of interest to few people. Drumpler 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Drumpler 03:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should also extend to the pages which redirect to it: New Covenant Church of God (Sweden), Mishpachah lev-tsiyon and New Covenant Ministries. Drumpler 03:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definately not notable, no sources. AntiVMan 04:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above (looks familiar! :p ) No reliable sources, WP:V not met (I've also searched for any, but no good). Similarly, notability is not asserted (again, I've looked elsewhere and can find no evidence of any). Neil ム 12:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources and appears to no be notable in the least. --Endless Dan 13:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources. — DIEGO talk 05:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I agree. Anyway the article is too screwed up to clean up. Someone should contact the author of the page or something. ~Milnivri~ 06:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already contacted all significant contributors. Drumpler 15:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirected to Sonoma County wineries. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Santa Rosa, California[edit]

List of wineries in Santa Rosa, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and an unneeded list that only serves the purpose of turning Wikipedia into a wineguide. Santa Rosa is part of the Sonoma County AVA which has an external link to the listing of wineries in the country which covers any encyclopedic value this article may have. AgneCheese/Wine 03:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete per WP:NOT and WP:WINEGUIDE. These sorts of articles are rather pointless. AntiVMan 04:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sonoma County wineries. DHowell 04:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rediect to Sonoma County wineries per DHowell, fair enough. RFerreira 00:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sonoma County wineries but only after merging. I'm cleaning up the article there. However, the format of this list is jarring and nonstandard even if clever, and should be discarded in favor of a simple list format. I found at least one non-linked winery on this list that has an article, so at best this list is outdated. Just glean what info we can here before deleting. Wikidemo 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've merged the only thing in this article that isn't already in Sonoma County Wineries, the mention of J Winery. Most of the links turn out to be duds or inappropriate external links. The mention that Santa Rosa is in the middle of Wine Country and is heavily involved in the wine economy, as well as its location, is already in the Santa Rosa article. So at this point I've changed my vote to delete / redirect. Wikidemo 23:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life of the Mind[edit]

Life of the Mind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This should be a slam-dunk deletion; I'm bothering to list it on AFD mainly for entertainment value. It's ridiculous, unreferenced, original research. I don't think there's a way to salvage it, nor do I see a similarity to an existing philosophy. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Quick searchification turned up a book, an academic paper, and an academic project. --slakr\ talk / 03:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI'd like to point out that the paper and project don't seem to have anything to do with the article; they just share a common title. Not sure about the book, since there's not much information there. eaolson 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a common phrase ("Adorno lived the life of the mind"), but isn't the proper subject of a wikipedia article (especially not as written here). Fireplace 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think someone needs to get laid. Delete. humblefool® 04:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but with protection... no reproduction, please. And put down that book. Mandsford 15:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is almost a speedy case. AntiVMan 04:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with deletion - looks like someone's idea of a joke. I find their "Avoidance and destruction of any attractive attire (i.e. cool clothes)" especially silly. Computer not responding 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fireplace. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete soeems like an Uncylcopedic euphemism for nerd--Lenticel (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources, original research at best. NawlinWiki 03:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenon Board[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Originally tagged CSD/A7: no assertion of notability. Article was created by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk · contribs), but CSD tag was removed by Nick Tompson (talk · contribs). slakr\ talk / 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yikes, looks like an advertisement for a product that hasn't even been released, with phrases like "it is the latest developments in establishing online communities" and "Their latest alpha release… looks promising". Good article - to consign to the dustbin. Computer not responding 04:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, lots of crystal ball speculation, no independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:WEB. AntiVMan 04:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Go ahead and delete this article, it will be added once Xenon Board is fully released =] --D4rkkn1gh7 06:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Because only the author has significantly contributed to article, and now agrees to delete it.--Alasdair 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and speculative. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurion Power Systems[edit]

Futurion Power Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N. Originally tagged CSD/A7: no assertion of notability. Article was created by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk · contribs), but CSD tag was removed by Nick Tompson (talk · contribs). slakr\ talk / 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was non-specific (and a little acronym-heavy). It fails notability requirements in that it not only does not assert notability and it fails notability for companies and organizations. --slakr\ talk / 03:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, this article doesn't show the company's notable. I don't see how it could either, given that the setup is said to be run mostly by a single person. I concur with deletion. Computer not responding 05:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am D4rkkn1gh7 and i wrote this article. If you could please explain what you mean by advertising as I have clearly gone to many other wiki pages that ARE advertising! I am wanting to sort this out as I am a close keen supporter of the Futurion Power Systems group and their work. Being a fellow Austraian i thought i would help in out to post this article and send it to him to view.. I come back now and this is what i see.. Please get back to me regarding this matter. Thankyou —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i do have to say also, slakr, the link you pointed to, 11: Blatant advertising, contains this:

    ...Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

    It is an article about a company....therefore is doesnt qualify for that criterion........
    • Reply to Comment Yes as the Author of Futurion Power Systems what I'm just wondering else am I supposed to name the article... A wonderful business with a lot to offer in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4rkkn1gh7 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
but that's the point "much to offer in the future." we're not a place for your advertising or pubic relations, when you do attain success--as you say, in the future, then it will be time for an article. DGG (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...its not an advertising article. there is nothing wrong with this article at all anymore, unless someone can pull another rabbit out of their hat. the author and i have been working on this article trying to make it less "advertisement" like, and providing sources where needed. every single thing in the article is on the website for futurion power. if it's on the website, then that is a good source.--Nick Tompson 07:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the sources are from the company itself, and I wasn't able to find the sources by googling that would show that this company is currently notable. If it becomes notable in the future, then someone who is not directly affiliated with the company can create a version with better sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're a smart cookie. The sources are from the company. That makes them valid. Who cares what google can throw up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Tompson (talk • contribs) 11:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that you read the notability criteria more closely? You appear not to understand Wikipedia's requirements thoroughly, and if you are more familiar with them, you'll be better able to explain how this company meets them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please also consider reviewing our guideline on conflicts of interest. --slakr\ talk / 04:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability needs to be established by outside sources, not the company's own website. Clear conflict of interest problems as well. shoeofdeath 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lichfield Business Village[edit]

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

This is a short stub about a local office complex. It does not assert notability (compare with the rejected guideline of WP:MALL). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Obvious A7 candidate. AntiVMan 04:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not an A7 candidate, as it's not about "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content", but it doesn't assert notability. --Fabrictramp 14:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion as NN Mall. Bearian'sBooties 19:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Wesley[edit]

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

I really doubt whether this guy is notable. I mean, sure, he invented something and appeared on American Inventor, but he wasn't even a finalist and I really fail to see how a man who just invented a "gym in a bag" is notable. Also, no references proving its notability are cited in the article and I seriously doubt there are any out there. Slarti (1992) 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I would have a different opinion if he made it to the finals. - Rjd0060 02:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable inventor of a non-notable device similair to every single home fitness centre advertised on informercials. AntiVMan 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not an admin so if this does end up as a delete (which seems likely) we'll have to wait for an admin to delete it. --Slarti (1992) 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reality tv does not necessarily make one notable, especially in this case.Iamchrisryan 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 create redirect) CitiCat ♫ 02:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tile mural[edit]

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

I prodded it with "article reads like an advertisement or how-to guide, we already have Mural, and it appears to be WP:COI - author is User:TileMural and all contributions have been to this article"; prod was removed, so I'm bringing it here Jamoche 01:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I looked at the article's talk page and its author has already proposed a merge to tile in lieu of deletion. Since we already have an article about mural, of which this is a particular type, I concur with the author that a merge - to the mural article - would be appropriate. Computer not responding 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Tile or Mural. AntiVMan 04:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that it has been merged does not change the fact that it is basically an advertisement for tile murals (complete with an external link to a supplier). At most, "tile mural" requires a sentence or paragraph at best (are there any examples of famous tile murals to link?) Right now it reads like a product catalog. Nposs 17:03, 9 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, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedied. Tawker 01:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crapware[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, original research. Mr.Z-man 01:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Keep - Though poorly sourced, my faith in the Wikpedia community/open source development makes be think that it can be improved.SteveSims 01:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pure vandalism.. Pascal.Tesson 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Submarine (1967 TV Series)[edit]

The Yellow Submarine (1967 TV Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Hoax, obviously. This it what happens when you edit Wikipedia while you're stoned, kids. The highly convincing picture made me laugh, so it wasn't a completely wasted effort. Pufnstuf 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pure vandalism.. Pascal.Tesson 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Music from a North[edit]

A Music from a North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Second hoax from this editor, unfortunately this one doesn't even have a funny picture like The Yellow Submarine (1967 TV Series). Pufnstuf 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was rename. But discussion on talk page (or WP:RM) is required to decide where; AfD can't easily do that. So not renamed yet, pending further discussion. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments[edit]

List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not entirely clear cut, but does come across as a POV attack page. Some of the mentioned landmarks were in fact already damaged or destroyed by accident or war, not by state action. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't have "List of landmarks destroyed by capitalist governments" List of landmarks destroyed by Imperialist governments", "List of landmarks destroyed by liberal governments" etc. etc. Information is unreferenced and seemingly adequate references can't be found. Not clear that this material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and perhaps WP:N. Badgerpatrol 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • provisional Delete, as nominator, but I'm interested to hear the wider community's opinion. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a cause to keep this article, since there seems to be a pattern that Communist governments have destroyed their own countries' landmarks for political reasons. I'm sure there are other governments that have destroyed their own landmarks, though, possibly because they wanted to erase the memory of a former leader or because of political climate changes. (Sort of like the practice of damnatio memoriae.) Maybe the classification of "Communist-run governments" is pejorative. In any case, there should be a list somewhere of landmarks destroyed by governments for political reasons, as opposed to destruction for practical reasons (e.g. the demolition of the previous High Bridge (St. Paul), which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, because it was so deficient that it needed to be replaced.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, the entries in Category:Destroyed landmarks could be checked to determine which landmarks were destroyed for political reasons, as opposed to practical or operational reasons. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether it was Stalin destroying a Cathedral in Moscow, and thousands of other Orthodox churches, or Mao destroying Buddhist temples in Tibet there is a long history of Communist regimes attempting to destroy the culture of the countries they rule. These are not accidents of war but single minded attempts by the state to assert its dominance. To say this is a POV attack page because liberal democracies don't go around blowing up Cathedrals is silly, rather like saying we shouldn't have an article on Hitler and the Holocaust because we don't have one about Churchill's programme to eradicate the Jews. Saying that such and such a building or place was destroyed by a communist regime for political reasons isn't NPOV but a statement of fact. This article is at an early stage of development but there's a wealth of material available, for the nominator to say that references 'can't be found' merely proves that he hasn't spent a moment looking for them. The story of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour encapsulates the point of this article. 'After the Revolution and, more specifically, the death of Lenin, the prominent site of the cathedral was chosen by the Soviets as the site for a monument to socialism known as the Palace of Soviets. This monument was to rise in modernistic, buttressed tiers to support a gigantic statue of Lenin perched atop a dome with his arm raised in blessing.' When St. Pauls gets blown up for a huge statue of Gordon Brown to be built in its place then that phenomenon too will deserve its own article. Nick mallory 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nick- thanks for your more than vaguely insulting comments. I said that references "seemingly can't be found because almost all of the linked articles are unreferenced, few if any source the claim that these buildings were destroyed for political reasons, and many have had "fact" tags outstanding for months. If you have references to hand- add them, and then this becomes a moot point. Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, for example, does not have a single unambiguously WP:RS. If we can't find any sources, then we have a problem (and note that I am not necessarily doubting the claims, although I do detect a fairly obvious POV in the article). Very similar things do happen elsewhere- cf. the substitution of the Baltic Exchange for the Swiss Re tower; #1 Poultry; the Docklands programme; the Euston Arch etc etc. All of these acts of grotesque vandalism were for political reasons, although this may not be obvious to you; without wanting to misleadingly come across as a raging commie (I'm certainly not), either Britain isn't a capitalist country, or those buildings weren't demolished to make a profit under our capitalist system. Which is it? Badgerpatrol 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Moscovites have a saying about the destruction of the cathedral - Khram, Khlam, Sram - Cathedral, Ruin, Shame. They knew the meaning of this act even if you somehow think the London Docklands redevelopment is the equivalent to Stalin's destruction of Christ the Saviour. Presumably Wormwood Scrubs is exactly the same as the Gulag and Stalin and Churchill were two sides of the same coin. Amazing. If you want to write an article about buildings destroyed by the 'grotesque vandalism' for 'profit' in the 'capitalist system' then go ahead, but that's hardly relevant to this article. As for a lack of political intent behind the destruction, Kirov said the Palace of the Soviets, proposed for the site, "will be just another push for the European proletariat, still dormant...to realize that we came for good and forever, that the ideas...of communism are as deeply rooted here as the wells drilled by Baku oilers". [1]. But what would he know eh? Nick mallory 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where I said that the Docklands redevelopment is equivalent to the destruction of Christ the Saviour? Of course, I didn't. We could not easily have an article listing buildings "destroyed by capitalist governments" because it would be near-infinitely long. We cannot easily have an article listing buildings "destroyed by Communist governments" because it should be near-infinitely long. We need to add references, for each instance, i.e. every building listed, demonstrating that the destruction was politically motivated. Currently we have none, making the list entirely POV. So keep going, add the references, and improve the article- that's how Wikipedia works. Badgerpatrol 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Monuments destroyed for political reasons (or something like that). The obvious non-communist example is the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statues a few years ago, and the various post-communist governments' removals of monuments in the early nineties. This should be kept and expanded out of its current POV. Totnesmartin 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that generally, but only if the claim that the buildings were in fact destroyed for political reasons can be substantiated by reliable sources. So far, no sources have been offered. Badgerpatrol 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have a separate article for buildings or monuments destroyed by religious sects or whatever? Why does it have to be inserted into this one? Saying these buildings were destroyed by communist governments isn't a point of view, it's a simple statement of fact. It's like saying an article about Man United is POV because it isn't also about Arsenal. Nick mallory 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we have to demonstrate that the buildings were destroyed not only by Communist governments, but because they were Communist governments, otherwise it is a partial and subjective listing that can never be adequately maintained. That = P.O.V. Badgerpatrol 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting case. I have to say keep with rename for now. Maintaining the list should not be too difficult, however setting the boundaries of inclusion might be hard. Sources are a must.Darkcraft 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and expand per Totnesmartin's suggestion. Definitely interesting. I think the idea is notable, but the selectivity is definitely POV. Maybe it could be expanded to Monuments destroyed for ideological reasons, because a nice intro could be written to provide broader context of the long history in politico-religious defacement or destruction (e.g. ancient Egyptian attempt to airbrush Akhenaten out of history, destruction of Catholic architecture under Henry VIII and so on). A broader scope would also cover post-WW2 removal of Nazi monuments, such as the demolition of the shell of the Berghof. Gordonofcartoon 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of entitling it "for ideological reasons". Demolition of landmarks isn't strictly a Communist phenomenon. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the inclusion criteria should be tightened up some. The article itself doesnt seem POV pushing, regardless of one's views on Communism. I like the idea of broadening the criteria from "Communist-run" to "for ideological reasons", though the latter seems less well defined. The bigger problem is what qualifies as a landmark, and not necessarily what ideology the destroyer had. Arakunem 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, rewrite, expand, and remove POV There have been many nationalist and religious landmarks removed by various governments for reasons which many of us disapprove of. A general article is one thing, a condemnation of a particular party is another. Motives are hard to discern. This article should ,be general ,with more particular subsidiary articles. DGG (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The page was a natural outgrowth of User:Ghirlandajo/List but, since even the link to the parent list was cannibalized, it has no raison d'etre now. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly what you mean by cannibalised, but if you mean my removal of this link [41] - then I can only say that it's surely not acceptable to link to a user page from a mainspace article. Badgerpatrol 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete in analogy to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashMe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PassMe. Sandstein 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WiFiMe[edit]

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

Un-notable, unsourced hardware/software for Nintendo DS piracy. Written like a forum post or installation guide. SpigotMap 01:05, 3 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, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 article does not cite any sources (WP:OR, WP:V). The "keep" opinions do not address the relevant points of policy. Sandstein 20:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PassMe[edit]

PassMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Passkey.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)
File:Passme.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Un-notable, un-sourced, hardware/software used in Nintendo DS piracy. Written like an advertisement or installation guide. SpigotMap 01:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article explains what PassMe does. M1N 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for sure..it is not only for piracy, and homebrews are an important part of gaming. articles have to start somewhere, just because the first version doesnt have 100000 words, doesnt mean that it wont be great someday.Sennen goroshi 22:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The device has no notability, much less enough information to warrant an article after stripping it of unverifiable/original research. SpigotMap 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no notability? a product that is sold in huge numbers all over the world is not notable? OIC. If obscure musicians and movies get a mention on wikipedia, so should this. You don't need to verify every single detail of every article - the facts are common knowledge, and unless someone disputes them, should not need to be verified.Sennen goroshi 22:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure/Un-notable bands get speedily deleted here. Bands need mass media coverage to be on wikipedia. Wikipedia works off verifiability, not common knowledge. SpigotMap 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are far more obscure/unverifiable articles in wikipedia than this one, instead of complaining about the article, or making veiled complaints about piracy, why don't you verify some of the article, and turn it into a great article? surely improving articles is better than removing them?Sennen goroshi 06:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything gets a place on Wikipedia, simple fact. And if you don't stop following me around reverting all of my edits, you will be on the Admin noticeboard. Get a life. SpigotMap 09:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear. I had no intention for people to get upset and emotional regarding my edits, they are edits - mere differences of opinion, nothing more. "get a life"? I don't think personal attacks are allowed in wikipedia, so I wont resort to replying with a childish insult. Following you around? well, seeing as you have been reverting an edit of mine, on an article you have never been to before, and have no connection with, it would seem that you have been following me, well feel free - have fun, I have no issues with people checking up on my edits. Please don't threaten me with the admin board, if you think I am worthy of being there, do it - otherwise there is no need to mention it. If you have any more issues regarding my edits, my wikipedia behaviour or my lack of "a life" feel free to leave your messages on my talk page, it is better to get these things out into the open, than sit there holding back. take careSennen goroshi 13:50, 8 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, ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 numerical consensus is "merge". However, per WP:DGFA, the core policies WP:V and WP:NOR must be taken into account when closing AfDs. In this case, no reliable sources appear to exist - only forums are cited - and accordingly, the article is unlikely to ever meet WP:V. Since per that policy, unverifiable content should be deleted and not merged, policy mandates that outcome. The content is available for merging if someone does find sources later. Sandstein 20:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FlashMe[edit]

FlashMe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
File:Dummy card.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added by closing admin)

Un-notable software/hardware used in Nintendo DS software piracy. Written like an installation guide. SpigotMap 01:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to Nintendo DS homebrew--Nick Y. 18:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Nintendo DS homebrew. tim.bounceback 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pokefy (i.e. merge and remove all but the most essential info). -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 20:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article lacks reliable third party sources about the subject, and merging won't change that. RFerreira 00:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nintendo DS Homebrew ffm 12:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is non-notable spam for a business offering what appears to be a potentially illegal product. I don't care so much about the legality aspect, but the spam part and lack of sources means we can't merge it anywhere until someone finds some publications issued by reliable third party sources. Burntsauce 20:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Nintendo DS Homebrew (as soon as it is no longer locked...). People who don't even know what FlashMe is (SpigotMap and Burntsauce first) shouldn't bother erasing things they don't ever use... This is NOT made for piracy, this is NOT spam (it is a free software!), and it doesn't need more sources (two are important : the creator's homepage, and gbadev forum). Define "reliable third party source" ? Website with more than XXXXX visits a day? A national newspaper? Even if I don't think it's useful, you can still google "flashme NDS" and see if there are enough answer for you to admit it is not a minor software...Jidoo 12:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jidoo please try to WP:AGF, I'm well aware of what FlashMe is, but it is not notable in the encyclopedic sense. The only citations within the article are personal websites and internet forums. THERE ARE NO RELIABLE THIRD PARTY SOURCES TO SUPPORT THIS ARTICLE. Please go read Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you stick your foot in your mouth any further. Burntsauce 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge WP is not a tutorial site, half of the article is a how-to on useage. once you've removed that part, the rest is worth a merge into Nintendo DS Homebrew.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --ais523 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Max Media Dock[edit]

Max Media Dock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Un-notable device for bootlegging Nintendo DS games. References are all to an open wiki or forum. Written like a fan site. SpigotMap 01:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to Nintendo DS homebrew--Nick Y. 18:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nintendo DS homebrew. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article lacks reliable third party sources (just a list of blogs and internet forums). Merging won't change that. RFerreira 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not all homebrew stuff is notable... nothing in this article establishes its importance to the community. no reliable sources. This article leaves me with more questions than it answers. If not deleted, it needs one hell of a drastic cleanup. Portions of it read like gibberish to a non techie:
    "libFATwert is a specialized FAT library"
    ... ok whats a FAT library?
    "should provide greater compatibility than chishm's MMD DLDI driver"
    ...why does it provide greater compatibility? whats a MMD DLDI driver do? who is chishm and why should we care?
    "It was revealed some time ago that the way the MMD implemented the ATA interface resembled that of the GBAMP, and that many of the registers were very similar."
    ... whats an MMD? how does it resemble GBAMP?
  •  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Exile (game)[edit]

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

This article is about a game that has been looking for a publisher for over a year and has swtiched systems at least once. WP:NOT#CRYSTAL in terms of success; if it ever becomes successful, an article can be created then. I cannot find any substantial magazine or Internet coverage that would qualify as a reliable source. Thus, I believe this does not pass the notability policy and should be deleted. hbdragon88 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sir, I'm somewhat confused by some of your comments.You say you can't find any coverage, but the referances and external links show that there's plenty of coverage on the subject. The latest article written about it (looking at the references) being September 17th, 2007. Also, while the game has no publisher, it's still being developed. If you checked the external links (specifically, the official message board), you can see that Vincent Dehaut (a founder of Studio Archcraft, the developer), constantly posts updates on the progress of the game. Sima Yi 00:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coverage that is reliable. For video games, that would be stuff like magazines or online sites like IGN, GaemSpot, or other sites. This article mostly has forum postings and small blogs and the ilk, which are self-published sources. Such sources are allowed as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources," which unfortunately this article is. hbdragon88 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sir, again I am confused by your comments. Gonintendo.com is a very well known and respected video gaming site. Considering it runs ads to generate profit, it's just as much a business as IGN, no? More to the poinnt the main and most important source in this article is the official trailer straight from the developer. You can't find more credible information than info given out by the ones making the game, can you? Sima Yi 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the only source is what worries me. It is the subject of it, per WP:N, but does not discuss it in detail (bullet point number 2 of WP:N). 00:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The game is NN, and the only part of the article that has a source backing up every fact is the Controversy section. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NASCAR Fan24, your comments also seem to be inaccurate. Everything in the article is sourced. If you check the reference which has the game's official trailer in it, you can see everything there is confirmed. Sima Yi 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "The game will feature eight playable characters, more than 100 different physical and magical skill combos, and more than 100 weapons and 200 pieces of armour." I don't see a source for that. It clearly says in WP:V that self-published sources (i.e. the official website) are not considered reliable and should only be used in conjunction with reliable third-party sources (i.e. Gamespot). There have been no major references in third-party sources, and this therefore is a non-notable game per WP:N. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Sir, please believe me when I say I'm not trying to embarass you, but all of that information you listed is in the very first reference.[42] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sima Yi (talk • contribs) 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:N. There have been no major references to the game in any reputable third-party source. That makes the game non-notable. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 21:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Sima Yi. Everything in the article is sourced, and thus there is no need for deletion. Dark Locke — Dark Locke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. It may be sourced, but most, if not all, of the sources are unreliable. Especially the forums. — Malcolm (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. The article itself admits "not much is known", so why is there an article? Clarityfiend 01:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until such time as the required multiple reliable independent sources become available - while the game doesn't even have a publisher this doesn't seem likely to happen and we can't assume it ever will. Miremare 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The biggest source on this article is a fan blog that isn't even near the level of any major media web site, and most are forums, self-published, and nn blogs. Not enough content to warrant existence, padded by an absurd controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me get this straight. The article is about a game that does not have a publisher, does not have a platform (looks speculative to me), and does not have a release date. There is also no information on the battle system or the story and the article is completely devoid of any verifiable sources. How can an article get any more crystally than this? --Cyrus Andiron 11:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mostly self-published sources and forums. Cap'n Walker 20:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep; it may be worth discussing a possible rename on the article's talk page. The problem is that the delete arguments here don't seem to be based on policy ('useless' is a matter of opinion, has been contested, and the users with that opinion haven't explained why; 'unmaintainable' is more of an argument, but has also been contested (consensus here isn't clear about whether the article is maintainable), and the list doesn't seem to be intrinsically unmaintainable especially if its editors decide to adopt a cutoff). It is quite possible that the article needs some changes in scope or some improvements, but that's true of many articles and can be fixed by normal editing. --ais523 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

World's largest universities[edit]

World's largest universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The topic seems to be very subjective. There are various 45 Universities on this list, but there's no set criteria for who is included, and so forth. Thus the list is unmaintainable, and should be deleted. GreenJoe 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no way anyone would devote the time to keep this list up to date. Delete. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World's largest universities by enrollment, which is what this actually is listing, I think. Then someone will have to create World's largest universities by land area, World's largest universities by budget, and on and on. (sigh -- more listcruft) I would only recommend deleting an article like this if it was the subjective type of, say, World's largest universities by impact on society. Accounting4Taste 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue with those is, especially the enrollment, at what threshold do you set for who is and isn't included? GreenJoe 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I see your point, and I wasn't claiming this was going to be a good article -- I suppose any university with a way of substantiating its enrollment could be on the list -- but I can't see any reason to delete this according to WP:LIST. I could be wrong, this is the first time I've tried to consider that criterion, and I'm prepared to change my mind if it's demonstrated that I've misinterpreted WP:LIST, which I didn't consider exhaustively. Accounting4Taste 00:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [+ and rename]Provided the list is cut down to those "mega universities" identified in academic literature (e.g. that by Daniel, etc.), or alternatively renamed to "list of universities with >100k students". 100k is of course an arbitrarily set number, but I think a significant one. The list would at least not be potentially infinite. I agree there are some shortcomings with this article, but I also think the information is useful and valid, at least in some form. As an aside, we also have the equally subjective (if not more so...) List of largest United States universities by enrollment...if one goes, so must the other, but I would personally keep both, at least in some form. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - seems not very useful. This mixed multi-campus university systems with mega-universities. You can go to a "Cal State University" campus and have it be the size of a high school. Most people considers each campus a seperate university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsRover (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most people do consider them separate universities...but as an actual fact, they're not. Some extremists consider Cornwall to be out with the United Kingdom- but we don't describe it as such here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - the list appears to be fatally flawed, and no one is maintaining it. back in january i made a number of strong objections to the facts presented -- many of the numbers appear quite suspect, there is no consistent criterion at all for addressing what counts as a university vs. a system of universities or even what counts as a university at all (see my comments concerning "open universities"), and the listing appears largely based on a single source who is far from objective (he's an active promoter of open universities). in the meantime, however, no one has addressed any of these issues or done any fact-checking. i don't object to the idea of having such a list, in theory, but given the tremendous flaws of this page and the total lack of maintenance, i think it would be better deleted. Benwing 04:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes- and with respect, your comments were rather insulting and largely reflect your snobbishly ill-informed attitude towards distance learning universities. I can't speak for many of those on the list, but The Open University in the UK is in every way a "normal" university- with a campus, a full complement of full and part-time staff, a large community of full-time on-site postgraduates and a reasonable ranking for research quality. Like any university, its charter is incorporated by the Privy Council, and the University was largely founded by Harold Wilson. I agree that the sourcing of the article could be looked at, although the "far from objective" source you are referring to is I presume Sir John Daniel, an acknowledged expert on the subject of higher education and a senior figure in both the Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO. The article could be improved, but the subject is not non-notable. Badgerpatrol 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the ONLY thing the article needs is a properly defined cutoff for inclusion (say >100K students). That way it automatically becomes maintainable. It is already referenced, so that is not an issue. Once, more, these kind of articles are what WP is good at, like it or not. If we start deleting all these nice, although slightly trivial, articles, not much useful information will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless. JJL 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest, and useful for people researching the way universities are structured around the world. I don't see any problem with having an arbitrary cutoff to the length of the list (whether by number of entries or by minimum population), just as I don't see any problem with having it in lists of tallest buildings, longest bridges, largest lakes, tallest mountains, most populated cities, etc. And we do have lists on all of those topics, and I hope no one will argue that they should be deleted. --Itub 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAX dude, WP:WAX. GreenJoe 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read that essay before citing it. --Itub 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, let me quote from the nutshell of that article (which, incidently, was written by me): "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions; Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is, Itub, that you can't point to the existence of another article as a reason to keep or delete this one. We have lots of article that shouldn't be one way or another, but are. GreenJoe 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can also read the polluted pond example at User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. There are lots of ponds that are polluted, but we don't keep adding sewage. GreenJoe 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The essay WP:AADD is disputed by many editors (for various, often good, reasons). Ofcourse he can point out that we have similar articles on other topics. Its a fair argument and should not be dismissed solely on the basis of this, often misunderstood, essay. And have you even considered the possiblity that none of these articles are in fact "sewage"? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, to clarify GJ, are you saying that the examples given by Itub (buildings, bridges, mountains, etc.) should all be deleted? Are you against lists generally? Badgerpatrol 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was talking particularly about the part of the essay that says "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this." Yes, other crap exists. But are the lists about bridges, buildings, cities, etc. crap? Obviously not, since maybe a dozen of them are featured lists, and exemplify Wikipedia's finest work according to the consensus of the many editors who participated in their nomination discussions. Now, if you think that my analogy is invalid, please give actual arguments rather than a link. The main point I want to make is that having a cutoff for a list of tallest/biggest/etc. things is not a problem by itself, since many good lists have cutoffs. --Itub 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not saying the other lists are crap, or that we shouldn't have them. What I was trying to say is that they're not comparable. This isn't by the size of the building, it's by the population. So how do we determine who's on the list, etc? There are some small Universities on there that I wouldn't consider a "mega university." From the little bit of criteria in the article itself, the determination seems to be very arbitrary. GreenJoe 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> So would you also be in favour of keep and rename to "universities with >100k students", or similar? I think what you are saying is that scope of the article should be more clearly specified and the piece improved, but not outright deleted? Badgerpatrol 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • See, I'm not sure on that. Because for example, if we say over 100k students, by what definition is that a mega or large University? It gets into the realm of original research. --GreenJoe 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "World's largest university systems". As the article points out, the University of California in this definition includes Berkley, UCLA, UC-Irvine, etc. Most of us, I think, base the size of a university on the number of students enrolled at a particular campus. As a list of the number of persons enrolled in a university organization, it's useful to some extent. Mandsford 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that would work, as many places don't have University systems. It needs to be more clearly defined if kept. GreenJoe 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • most of us base the size of a university on the number of students enrolled at a particular campus - actually, I think this is a US perspective, based on the fact that US system campuses tend to act a lot more independently than campuses of comparative institutions elsewhere (eg. Australia, Europe, etc.). Natebailey 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: this is why this list isn't very useful. Its misleading. Someone enrolled at California State University, Channel Islands is going to the 7th largest university in the world? Also CSU really includes community colleges, too. If you want to mix apples and oranges that title of article really should be World's largest universities or university systems for the ones in the US MarsRover 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Analogues exist in the UK, not sure whether the American idea practice is based on the British model, vice versa, or neither, but the University of London and University of Wales are two that are more or less akin to the "system university" of autonomous institutions within an overarching federal framework. The point is, my understanding is that, for example, the university system of California is referred to as "University of California", as in "University of California at Santa Barbara", or whatever. The article can only relate the information as stated by the institutions themselves, not make judgements as to what is or isn't actually a university as opposed to a system of universities. There already is a very clear note in the introduction explaining this point. (Although I'm certainly not against a rename if a short and informative title can be found). Badgerpatrol 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — An interesting list about a notable fact. It would be helpful if the table had a cut-off size to constrain the list, and also listed the year at which each value was reached. Mandsford's comment about a rename may make some snese. — RJH (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the claim at the top of this page, the page is quite maintainable; I have been doing so for a long time. Many universities include this basic information in relatively easy to find places (ie. in the 'about' section of their website). Some don't include it at all, and so one has to find out from secondary sources (eg. Daniel's book, World Bank reports, etc.) or via email to university administrators. There is literally nowhere else in the world that this information is reported in an up-to-date format (which is why I have invested a lot of effort in gathering and curating this information). I am happy with a rename ('by enrolment' sounds like an improvement). FWIW, I raised the question of a minimum in the discussion page (see Talk:World's_largest_universities#What_should_the_minimum_be.3F) and that page also addresses some of the other issues listed here (eg. campuses vs. systems, etc. was addressed under Talk:World's_largest_universities#US_public_universities). I think this information is valuable to those interested in researching universities or reporting on them (I came across many newspaper citations of the form "XXX is the n-th largest university in the world", most of which were unsubstantiated, cf. this page which has direct references in most cases, and secondary references as well, where they can be found and are relatively up to date.) Natebailey 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve. Rather that divide this up in to articles by various criteria, we should expand this to show the criteria. The usually one is number of students--although this has a traditionally different definition between the anglo-american and the Continental european patterns.--and, the article seems to show, the Asian pattern. Reliable data is available from various sources, and i can not see what is means by "impossible to maintain" except that the nom. does not wish to maintain it. Now f we were to try a list of worlds best universities, then there might be some problems about criteria. :) i would change the name to "university systems" or at least make that very clear in the documentation. DGG (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --ais523 15:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Orange Plaza[edit]

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

Dead mall in New York. Consists partially of a list of stores, only source is a user-submitted Dead Malls.com page. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Tagged for references for several months with no help. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried, but this article hasn't a leg to stand on, I'm afraid... SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wp:not#amemorialforunremarkabledfunctshoppingmalls.--Victor falk 17:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above discussion. By the way, this was not even notable while it existed. (I used to work in nearby Walden, New York). Bearian'sBooties 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Notation[edit]

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

unreferenced notation, fails the Google test, WP:N, WP:NOR -- Kl4m T C 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


With all due respect, it was not made up. I happen to be related to the designer, and (yes i did read about personal opinions and bias) i think i did keep the article quite neutral. The problem is that most of the scientific and mathematical community have not yet heard much about it, as he only came up with the idea in the beginning of this year. However, it is becoming more and more widely used.
If you want to talk to him, i can give you an e-mail address for him; he normally checks his e-mail at the university every evening. I have checked with him that it is fine to give you this one: [email protected]
Looking at it from another point of view, though, is this the sort of thing a schoolboy would dream up? Teacosythesecond 01:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until an expert can be recruited to i) verify the existence of this article and ii) to attest to the notability of this notation. There does appear to be a mathematician by the name of Martin Bailey who is Chair of the Conference commitee of the Mathematical Association. A search of Google scholar [43] attests to the existence of four different types of Bailey notation (we might need a disambig if we keep this one), one being a method to notate the branches of trees, one that appears to be an early system of phonetics, one for the notation of minerals and one which appears with regard to mathematics the description of one paper reads "For the ordinary and the generalised hypergeometric series we found it convenient to use Bailey's notation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTo288 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Sorry forgot my sig.KTo288 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I bow to the superior knowledge of others.KTo288 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, a request for help has been placed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics.KTo288 01:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's good that KTo288 asked for help at WT:WPM (I came from there), but his/her reasoning is completely wrong. No expert is needed to verify this article or attest to notability. What is needed is multiple reliable sources. According to the article creator, this was made up by the inventor at the beginning of this year and "most of the scientific and mathematical community have not yet heard much about it". Ok, so there's a claim that "it is becoming more and more widely used". Well, then let's see the use! Cite some papers. Otherwise I don't see why this any different than creating an article on something I made up several months ago and am trying to publish now (I am a professional mathematician). I would think if I did so, it would be reasonable to reject it based on WP:NOR and I don't see why this case is any different. --Horoball 02:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thankyou to you and everyone else from WT:WPM. KTo288 08:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is completely uncited. No notability or verifiability. Doctormatt 02:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either non-notable, original research or hoax. I haven't found a reference to indicate this exists. The author says it was invented this year. All Google scholar hits [44] by KTo288 are older and appear unrelated. Saying "Bailey's notation" in a paper does not by itself indicate that this is a real name for a notation. It often just indicates that the author chose to use the same notation as in a listed reference by somebody called Bailey. The paper with "For the ordinary and the generalised hypergeometric series we found it convenient to use Bailey's notation" has a reference to "W. N. Bailey, Generalized hypergeometric series, Cambridge, 1935". Bailey Notation currently has two references. The first [45] is about Graham's number with nothing about Bailey notation. The second is only given as "Large Number Theories, by Maxamillion Taylor and Jane P. Schäfer (published September 2007)". No place of publication is given and I haven't found it. "Maxamillion Taylor" has a single Google hit [46] on a dead goldfish, and "Maxamillion" is a suspicious name for the alleged author of "Large Number Theories". "Jane P. Schäfer" has zero Google hits.[47] PrimeHunter 02:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thankyou for your comments. Martin Bailey is my grandfather and a great man, but i happen to know his greatest fear is to be forgotten about when he dies. His health is failing (he is 69), and he knows he doesnt have long left. I tried (and i think i succeeded) in keeping personal values and opinions out of the article, but i can see now that i need to be patient and wait until more of the world hears about it. I know that even if it is only by an obscure notation, my grandfather will be happy to be remembered. Unfortunatley, I know very little personally about it; most of what i wrote was with the help of Martin and my own problem solving skills (this was the main reason for my lack of refrences). I will try again at a later date, when more papers etc have been published and there is a space in wiki for it.
In response to the comment on the authorship of the book, I'm afraid i didn't have it handy at the time of writing - i had intended to edit it later. I believe i may have misspelled their names. Anyway, thats beside the point now.
Thankyou again. Teacosythesecond 02:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: for what it's worth, Large Number Theories does not appear to be the exact title of any existing book; with electronic catalogs, it's hard to find approximate titles. If the author can come back with the real title and authorship, that would be good. For what it's worth, this notation does seem a slight improvement on the existing notations; but WP is not the place to campaign for it. A letter to American Mathematical Monthly would be better, but this may simply not be enough of an improvement to catch on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously, as no references exist. – Smyth\talk 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources, and the Google searches offered above by previous commenters suggest that no others are likely to be found. EdJohnston 17:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Bailey notation is all but useless anyway. As far as I can make out its sole purpose is to make expressing Graham's number marginally easier, but explaining Bailey notation is more complicated than explaining Graham's number. Bailey notation cannot express any other notable nontrivial whatsoever. The article itself contains several extremely obvious mathematical errors which I have removed but will not work on further until this is decided, and explains Bailey notation in a fairly confusing and contradictory fashion, not very rigorously at all. In any case, we already have Jonathan Bowers' array notation, which is better-designed, vastly more powerful, and equally non-notable. I therefore find it extremely difficult to believe Bailey notation will every attain the notability requirements. -- SamSim 23:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Center Mall[edit]

Sunset Center Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Orphaned stub on a mall in Texas. Claims to be the first mall in its area, but doesn't back that up with any sources. A search for sources turned up nothing but store directories. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Finally, a mall with a claim to notability! Unfortunately, being the first mall in the fourteenth largest city of the second-biggest state in the fourth country of the world doesn't cut it.--Victor falk 18:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It just has soo many semi-descriptive advertising terms.--NightRider63 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability is derived from economic impact to region. Citations & References provided. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 23:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Exit2DOS2000. This mall doesn't have to be the Mall of America to have an article. If it's the first mall in the region and has economic impact on the region, the article should stay. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it have a notable (ie, unusually remarkable) impact?--Victor falk 01:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean the one that starts "Amarillo's first modern-day indoor mall with the region's first escalators..."? I'm fairly sure that "impact" has to be something more than escalators.--Victor falk 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tend to think the 1000's of jobs it created in its construction, 100's of retail owners and 100's of retail workers have noticed an Economic Impact. Shall I continue with how the State might notices an Economic Impact ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 00:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has historical impact as well. Malls should have articles, specially this one because it was the first. Many malls have articles on Wikipedia, even those less notable than this one. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malls are also important for the economy, and everyone knows malls in their area, which makes them even more notable. If this mall was the first in Amarillo, TX (a pretty large city), it has huge impact on the city itself. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 21:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit contradictory: if Amarillo is a big city (which I say we can say), then a mall presumably is not likely to have so much impact. Has it been such a tremendous success (or being a such a burden, you never know) that it has made a notable (that is, different from what is expected) impact on Amarillo (with sources please)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor falk (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking for the provision of relative notability is pointless. Notability is provided by the fact that it has a significant economic impact to the local community. "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on..." amongst other things "economies". In what way are you suggesting a Shopping Centre doesnot fufill this ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, on the contrary, I'm asking for the absolute impact. Was it huge? Was it insignificant or negative? Was it about average? In which case it is not notable--Victor falk 02:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asking "Was it about average?" as in comparason to what? Your asking for its notability in comparason to something else. That is relative. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you say it's notable no matter its economic impact on the community? What's that fuss about saying economic impact is a reason to keep then?--Victor falk 05:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reliable secondary sources. Delete. Pathless 18:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless, no sources are present--NightRider63 19:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Fashion Terminal[edit]

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

Spammy article on mall in Texas . Tagged for notability since June with no improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with User:TenPoundHammer, this doesn't meet WP:Notable and I doubt it could be improved. Any notability is that of the "branded stores" themselves and this could be handled by a line in the relevant articles, as in "where to find it". Not that anyone's having much trouble tracking down "Chip and Pepper", I reckon. Accounting4Taste 00:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also pretty close to WP:SOAP. Bfigura (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only claim to notability spamming wikipedia--Victor falk 18:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spamming Wikipedia, investigated previous allegations, and WP:CORP. --NightRider63 20:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bettendorf Middle School[edit]

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

Middle schools do not inherently meet the notability guideline, and this article makes no real assertion otherwise. My google search turned up about 2000 hits, but a skimming of them revealed to me nothing but trivial listings; while the school was mentioned on many websites, it was only to provide such simple information as its address and student population, not actually discuss the school. In light of this, I suspect that no notability-asserting sources actually exist. Someguy1221 00:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not assert notability, Wikipedia is not a school directory. szyslak 06:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this article and Bettendorf High School into a Bettendorf School District article, along with the parts of the education section of the main Bettendorf, Iowa article. The community has 30000 people and a few schools too many for making it feasible to merge everything education and school related into the city article. The schools themselves are unremarkable, and probably don't need separate articles but they have apparently gained a fair number of state athletic championships. The education system of a community is a significant part of the public services and affect about half of the population, whether they are students, parents or employees. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 13:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn --Victor falk 18:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom!--NightRider63 20:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 20:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bettendorf High School into Bettendorf School District. As far as I am aware, neither school has anything very notable about them to need there own article, but both articles could be trimmed down and merged into a single entry quite easily. Bettendorf High School does appear to have some notable former students, some sources for those would help establish notability. Camaron1 | Chris 20:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, or merge into BSD. Chris 21:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the district page or the Bettendorf, Iowa article like suggested, and per our well established WP:REDIRECT guidelines. Burntsauce 22:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very large number of athletic championships is a reason for notability of a school.DGG (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can provide reliable sources for these championships I would tend to agree, but there are none hence the redirect !vote. Burntsauce 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Sjakkalle who provides a well reasoned argument for doing so. RFerreira 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 39 state championships are plenty to establish notability. TerriersFan 21:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --ais523 15:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Aramael Johanson[edit]

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

Probable hoax. I get absolutely no non-Wikipedia Google hits at all. Prod removed by author without reason. I suspect that the name is misspelled, or something, but in either case nobody can verify that this person even exists, much less is WP:N. hbdragon88 00:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yes, this does seem like some sort of spelling error, but I can't get anything from Google using the last name or the first name and various keywords like "Russia" and "murder", etc. Zero hits for the article as it stands, and that fails WP:Notability for me. Accounting4Taste 00:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. ILovePlankton(L—S) 01:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nom--NightRider63 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete hoax? not notable, fails google test. Iamchrisryan 20:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, as violating WP:N, WP:V, WP:BIO, and WP:RS. Bearian'sBooties 19:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Holmboe[edit]

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

Non-notable person and possible COI. Supposedly one of the founders of the the 1996 Internet World's Fair. Also, awarded "...the International Humanitarian Award... by the Coalition for the World Union Federation in the United States...", which would be impressive were it not for that fact that you can give yourself that award by clicking 'print' here. Most ghits seem to be self-published, and in fact, the article is close to a G11 of the subject's homepage here. --Bfigura (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom, for the reasons above. --Bfigura (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and thanks to Bfigura for thorough searching and reporting. By golly, looks like I too am now a World Peace Advocate! The things that happen when you're researching AfDs. Definitely violates WP:COI, doesn't meet WP:Notability, but full marks for chutzpah. Accounting4Taste 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although as a fellow laureate of the World Peace medal I probably shouldn't comment. Fails WP:BIO. The only non-associated source was a brief mention in the Carl Malamud book on that 1996 Internet World's Fair, trivially verifying that his Stavanger "pavilion" won a gold medal (and you know, the screenshots do look pretty good for 1996). Perhaps if this were a non-virtual world's fair that would mean something. --Dhartung | Talk 00:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete <sarcasm>Wow! I'm finding hundreds of ways to get a wikipedia article.</sarcasm> ILovePlankton(L—S) 01:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much blatant WP:COI, also an e-mail from the subject of this article, commenting on this article? Not right--NightRider63 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What do you know, I'm a recipient of the International Humanitarian Award too now! I just printed and posted it on my wall. Burntsauce 22:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Already covered in more detail in History of the Internet and seems an unlikely search term. Espresso Addict 21:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet vs web history[edit]

Internet vs web history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Just a list of key points in the internet and the web. Covered adequately in History of the Internet. Also, the title is confusing, is this a comparison of the history of the internet vs the web? Rawr 06:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete without prejudice to re-creation from independent reliable sources. —Cryptic 04:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caffe D’Amore[edit]

Caffe D’Amore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is written in a blatantly inappropriate advertising tone with a number of POV statements, and there is no indication that its subject, due to the lack of any reliable third party sources, meets WP:CORP. Admin declined speedy on the basis of an assertion of notability despite it being a G11 speedy. Erechtheus 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the admin mentioned above. I think the company is arguably notable although I also think the notability is marginal and seeing some citations to reliable sources would help. As for being spam, I think the tone and content could be improved but, IMHO, it is not as "blatantly inappropriate" as Erechtheus thinks. This is a judgment call. I think we should decide the notability question first. If it's notable, the tone and content can be fixed. If it's not notable, then who cares whether it's spam? --Richard 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE I have extensively cleaned up the article to unspam it. It still needs third-party reliable sources, but the advert issue is (mostly) moot now. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot attest to its notability (or not), but I wish to point out that the article in its current state, while nominally asserting it ("multi-million dollar", "60,000 square-foot", "around the world"), has no legitimate sourcing for that purpose, rather it is a ducky promovertisement. Here is a case where fixing it would probably take as long as rewriting it from scratch, as that is likely what would need to be done. So while usually I would want to propose to keep and fix, as this currently is a clear spam page (which are wikipeeves of mine), and deletion/proper recreation would be no harder than fixing, this seems a clear delete. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)     Update: after my cleanup, it seems a better path to keep and properly source. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC) keep, conditional on being properly sourced. clarified Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the proper course would be to keep only if the article is now properly sourced to comply with WP:CORP. While it is certainly written in appropriate tone due to your fine work, there is still a disturbing content issue that would need to be addressed. Erechtheus 21:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that makes perfect sense. I agree and will clarify my position accordingly.Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment: the original author of the page said this about the page on its Talk: "This article is to share information about the rich history of the company." So the intent of the current article is beyond doubt. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Struck per my update. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. I don't really see a point leaving it with various content tags when any rewrite would begin with blanking what is already there. Someguy1221 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - As the writer of this article, there is no intension for this to be an advertisement. It is a historical account of this company. I studied other companies on wiki before writing this including Peets, Folgers, The Coffee Bean, The San Antonio winery, etc etc. It would seem my article is written in the same tone. If you feel differently about this, please help me fix it. I think a 100+ year old tradition that changed and help shape the hot beverage industry is worthy of its place on wiki.
I welcome your help and suggestions.
Dreambuildersco 18:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's WP:CORP--NightRider63 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Introducing the first flavored cappucino seems notable, though I'd like to see some 3rd party sources verifying that assertion. Cap'n Walker 19:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Claiming notability is one thing, but it's not being proven. The creating editor has had a little time now to find some independent sources that substantiate the claims and demonstrate notability, or at least assert to us that these sources are out there. If it doesn't change in the due course of the debate, delete it for failure of WP:V and WP:N. At least Baccyak4H's effort has dealt with the advertorial issue. Makes me ask "if advertising was not the intention, why write advertorial?" Adrian M. H. 20:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if we can supply a couple of reliable sources, just like we did for Mzoli's. Remember? Burntsauce 22:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only claim to notability lacks a reliable source so deletion is in order. It's not like there is a lot to recreate if sources are found later. Vegaswikian 05:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Russian: Kirov's speech transcript, December 30, 1922 Moscow Museum of Architecture, www.muar.ru quoting 1957 official edition
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_3&oldid=1081101566"