Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 29 October 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed predictions[edit]

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

A number of objections, culled from the Talk page:

  • Not encyclopaedic. More appropriate on Wikiquote.
  • Poorly sourced or relying largely on a single webpage source that is itself unsourced.
  • Whether something constitutes a "failed prediction" requires at least POV judgement or at worst original research
  • Not actually a list of failed predictions, but rather, selective quotes taken out of context in order to create mild comedy.
  • Quotes largely given without any context or commentary.

--Waggawag 10:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. --Evb-wiki 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reminds me of some of the stuff my mother-in-law used to forward, and that used to circulate via xeroxed sheets tacked to office bulletin boards. Non-encyclopedaic. Brianyoumans 12:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Koryu Obihiro 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't hit the Pick 6 at Monmouth on Saturday. That is also a failed prediction. Smashville 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I think the key to this, despite being enormously indiscriminate is "out of context". It leads itself to having apocryphal info, too. Smashville 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a thorough cleanup and references. Most of the examples should be deleted as too vague, but the doomsday predictions give specific dates or years and have presumably been publicized, so it shouldn't be impossible to find sources. Clarityfiend 17:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's instead move the "Doomsday" predictions into the Doomsday event article and delete them here. Unfortunately, doomsday predictions can be generated quite regularly in modern times, and continue to be generated, so only those that were historically high-impact (ie, had some relevance to human events beyond being simply noted in the historical record) ought to merit inclusion (in that article). --Waggawag
  • Delete. Funny but merely a hodge-podge collection of quips, not a proper encyclopedic article. For such title I would expect scholar treatment of the topic, not something lifted from a Sunday newspaper. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I knew I'd seen this before. The "humorous" quotes are taken, word for word, from a cheap paperback book called 303 of the World's Worst Predictions by Wayne Coffey(1983, Tribeca Communications). The dates for the world's end are from The People's Almanac #2 (Wallace & Wallechinsky) Author failed to predict that someone might recognize plagiarism. Mandsford 02:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I predict Delete, though if it's kept again, add that one into the article. The fact it would qualify under the guidelines I see there show the problems with it. --UsaSatsui 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

(

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

The result was withdraw nomination. Carlosguitar 05:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballydung 666[edit]

I am withdrawing my AfD proposals in favour of the solution suggested by User:Blathnaid in the discussion below; which is to keep four main P'n'R articles and merge three minor ones, including this one "Ballydung 666" (Sarah777 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ballydung 666 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I am completing an incomplete AFD by Sarah777. There was no reasoning offered, but the article has obvious real world notability issues and probably cannot be cited with reliable secondary sources as required by WP:FICT. I vote Delete. Pilotbob 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

   * Ballydung
   * Ballydung 666
   * Ballydung Manor
   * Fester and Ailin'

There are also three main articles on the show 

   * Podge and Rodge
   * The Podge and Rodge Show
   * Features of The Podge and Rodge Show

and there are other miscellaneous articles such as 

   * A Scare at Bedtime which is a combination of a list of dozens of red links embedded in yet another version of the Podge and Rodge article.

There are about five more articles which should either be deleted or merged into a single Podge and Rodge article. (Sarah777 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    • I agree that this article is perhaps taking things a bit too far but surely A Scare at Bedtime being its own show should have its article kept intact? And Features of The Podge and Rodge Show could be put in with the main article on the show but I thought that article was getting crowded enough as it is. Also Podge and Rodge is not specifically about the show - it is about the presenters and some of the information predates even A Scare at Bedtime. It should be noted that there is more than one show at stake here. --Candlewicke Consortiums Limited 19:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Could you merge everything into two articles; R'n'P show and ASAB? I appreciate your hard work but in the general scheme of things in Wiki they like a single topic to be covered by one article. (Sarah777 21:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
        • Actually, the two series, The Podge and Rodge Show and A Scare at Bedtime probably do merit their own separate articles. A Scare.. was broadcast internationally and did win awards and The P'n'R Show is one of the highest rating shows on Irish television. The characters themselves probably deserve their own article, as they have a history and notability beyond the programmes alone. (In the same way Elmo isn't just a section in Sesame Street - and I admit that is a comparison I never thought I would ever make.) Most of the others really don't merit seperate articles: for example, Fester and Ailin could be merged into A Scare.. as they only appeared on that series and the others could be simple redirects. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Podge and Rodge, The Podge and Rodge Show and A Scare at Bedtime per Flowerpotman. Features of The Podge and Rodge Show seems OK to keep to me, since it covers three series. Merge and redirect Ballydung 666 and Ballydung Manor into Podge and Rodge, and merge Fester and Ailin' into A Scare at Bedtime. Bláthnaid 11:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That seems about right; if there is general agreement on the 'keep 4, merge 3' do I have to change my formal proposal? (Sarah777 12:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I think if you say that you withdraw the nomination, this discussion can be closed. (I can help with the merging) Bláthnaid 00:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, obvious hoax, text copied from Oscar Wilde. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick New III[edit]

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

Hoax. The image is of Leopold Staff. Google search gives nil result here and here. TerriersFan 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:14, 11/5/2007

Jim Jagielski[edit]

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

This article is entirely unreferenced, and has a wholly inappropriate tone for a biography. It was written by what appears to be the subject himself (Jimjag (talk · contribs · logs)). The claims to notability in the article are all unreferenced, "A/UX Guru", editorship of the Apache section of slashdot, and his partnership in Apache Software Foundation. Notability is not inherited, and the combination of three weak claims to notability don't rise above the other problems with the article (WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:V, and tone).

  • Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although the article does appear to have WP:COI issues, he is certainly notable in the field of computer science, as shown by pages of ghits. -- Dougie WII 16:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you bother to thumb through the content of those ghits? Most of it appears to be trivial (lots of newsgroup and blog postings), and simply counting ghits certainly doesn't do due diligence to WP:N (and ignores the other issues plaguing the article). /Blaxthos 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly not a major figure in the OSS movement, and no evidence of notability in the article. SparsityProblem 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:COI and WP:V. - --Brewcrewer 17:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep co-founder, chairman and director of The Apache Software Foundation reads like assertion of notability to me, and the ghits seems to confirm this claims. Greswik 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me (speedy A7). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 13:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DR. Kenneth I. Lichti[edit]

DR. Kenneth I. Lichti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Claims of notability, but nothing there which indicates that he's really notable. Corvus cornix 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. No references to support notability. WWGB 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as A1 (no context). Can also qualify for A7 (bio) or A3 (no content), but who's counting? Tagged for A1. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete by WP:SNOW as failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, and WP:V, possibly an Urban legend, for a film to be released in 3 years' time. Bearian 19:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet of the Apes 2: Above and Beyond the Planet of the Apes[edit]

Planet of the Apes 2: Above and Beyond the Planet of the Apes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article was "unsourced" and prodded; User: POTAFan added a link to a (in my opinion dubious) weblog and removed "prod". The very model of a minor general 22:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, unless a reliable (not a blog) reference can be added. --θnce θn this island Speak 23:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until there are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 23:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only "source" is some random guy on a messagboard (who has the same username as the guy who made this article, and whose only post on that messagbord is this claim) who says his brother works for 20th Century Fox (doesn't everyone know someone like that?). TJ Spyke 23:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know somebody who works for Industrial Light and Magic, can I post inside information as he provides it?  :) Corvus cornix 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Lawgiver bleeds! JuJube 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this damned dirty article! Clarityfiend 00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Resources given - a message board posted by the same user who created this - is about as unreliable as it can get! The entire Mark Wahlberg site is a phpBB message board (leaving the question as to just how reliable it is). Clear cut case of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Fails multiple policies. Doctorfluffy 20:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -- Dougie WII 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uneinvitation[edit]

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

Non-notable website, no claim of notability for the site or the software. Corvus cornix 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. east.718 at 15:37, 11/5/2007

Ashley Fernee[edit]

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

No sign of notability. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the person is not notable. Chris! ct 22:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL 00:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Playing professional level in a sport is inherently notable. Edward321 00:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep While I agree professional sports people are inherantly notable, the article really REALLY needs some expansion. Jcuk 01:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that would be possible --> Adelaide: 1996-98, 2 games, 0 goals. His carrer stopped after 2 games w/ 0 goals. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are there reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability? Where is the content, analysis or even sporting stats? I think Edward321 has a "woeful lack of knowledge" when it comes the notability criteria for sports bios. --Gavin Collins 19:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Woeful lack of knowledge? I'm directly using the notability criteria you linked. The very first thing said under Athletes is 'Competitors who have played in a fully professional league', which this person has. The other things you list - secondary sources, etc. are things that make an article better, but that is a seperate issue from notability. If notability meant what you think it does then every stub should be deleted as non-notable. Edward321 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:BIO for athletes having played at the top level of his sport. -- Whpq 19:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. - Ukulele 21:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep played professional sports at top level, so merits an article. Some further info and refs would be useful though. -- MightyWarrior 21:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Just passes WP:BIO but fails, I think, WP:NOTE. WP:BIO does say "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Common sense should rule here, I think. --Malcolmxl5 21:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Satisfies the requirements for WP:BIO. References should be included to denote his (admittedly brief) career stats, but this is a separate cleanup issue distinct from notability requirements. --Craw-daddy | T | 11:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I noticed someone has added a reference to his career stats since I last looked at the page last night. --Craw-daddy | T | 11:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BIO for athletes having played at the top level of his sport. - --Brewcrewer 17:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus. Good improvement, though there're still some self-published sources that need to be replaced.PeaceNT 13:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Different fur[edit]

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

While many notable people may have recorded at this studio, that doesn't in and of itself make the studio notable. The only reference in the article is the only media reference on the studio's official website. A single media reference isn't enough for WP:CORP. IrishGuy talk 20:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as long as further sources are added. Searching "Different Fur" + Studio returns 10000 hits, all of which appear to be about this subject on a quick scan. Whilst most, if not all, may not feature the studio as subject a good number meet 'If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.' Nuttah68 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIG isn't a valid argument. Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is what counts as evidence for notability. I don't believe this is the case. Subdolous 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Subdolous. Chris! ct 22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. There are some references out there, but perhaps the authors of the articles could clean this up? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep references appear to be strong and establish notability. Artw 03:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - This studio is important, and has been covered referenced several times in Mix magazine, including at least one feature article. If that's not WP:N enough for a studio, I don't know what ever would be. Torc2 05:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up Notability is established - the article just needs some work Magus05 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I took the first swipe at cleaning this up. Check it out and see if it's sufficient now. Torc2 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger keep - Different Fur is an iconic studio in Bay Area music history. Even younger musicians speak about it in awe when they get the opportunity to record there. I think Torc 2 has done a nice job on it and in fact, it probably could be expanded and an additional article opened on Patrick Gleeson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdiliberto (talk • contribs) 20:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amply notable. older ≠ wiser 21:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Subjects are actually too disparate for a useful category to be created out of them - making the list even more redundant. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban planning publications[edit]

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

Wikpedia is not a directory. Contested PROD. Corvus cornix 21:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Categorize is probably the best option here. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qst 19:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article has been speedy deleted by User:Newyorkbrad--JForget 00:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patting[edit]

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

Article on neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MikeVitale 21:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless some kind of reliable source material is found. No sign of any notability, either. It could well be a hoax intended to insult someone named Pat. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, it's an attack page. Corvus cornix 21:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as non-notable, and an attack page. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced and an attack. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to Wiktionary, see if they can make use of this. Qaanaaq 10:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't send personal attacks to Wiktionary. Corvus cornix 16:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence it is a widely used term, and a dictionary definition at best. Edison 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a db-attack tag on this. Corvus cornix 16:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ozymandias (Dino Crisis)[edit]

Ozymandias (Dino Crisis) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This fails the reliable source requirement of WP:FICT and contains original research (one of the sources is Approximate measurements gained from personal research) Pilotbob 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Pike[edit]

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

Non-notable anti-Semite. Wikipedia is not Klanwatch or similar; while this fellow seems to have a large web presence and have attracted the attention of anti-bigotry watchdog groups, has he done anything noteworthy? EngineerScotty 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing in the article asserts his notability. Katr67 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletions. —Katr67 16:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as insufficiently notable per Wikipedia:Notability (people). Person has not "been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." — Satori Son 16:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, almost certainly not covered substantially by reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy 05:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rockout[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a user modification and rules modification to Halo 2; nn, OR, etc.

I am also nominating

Carlossuarez46 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, we could have thousands of articles relating to user-created modifications. Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 21:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are thousands of game mods out there... --Magus05 (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy 05:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Wickenden[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements of WP:BIO, lacks reliable sources Pilotbob 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Tara[edit]

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

Delete nn holiday campsite, only source is from its owner - nothing to show significant coverage in third party reliable sources, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating:
Devon Cliffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) another campsite owned by the same company with similar lack of references or notability.

Carlossuarez46 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Descent (2007 film)[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability for apparently independent film that Yahoo claims grossed over $13,000 at the box office. MikeVitale 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. See WP:N. Subdolous 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Rotten tomatoes throws up 25 reviews. [1]. Article already has NYT Review and IMDB as references, which I would have htought would be enough to establish notability, and evne if that's not the case should afd really be your first port of call if an article could be sourced better? Artw 21:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Imdb references are never reliable and should never be used for claims of notability. Corvus cornix 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. The film was reviewd by the NY Times, that should add to it's notability71.187.237.12 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A google search reveals quite a few reviews and interviews. Certainly notable enough to keep the page.Alberon 00:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets the notability standards for contemporary films: "...a great many contemporary films are, due to their critical reception and large volume of published material, sufficiently notable to merit their own articles." A search of the Movie Review Query Engine (mrqe.com)[2] shows this film has been reviewed by numerous major, notable publications, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, New York Post, Variety, Time Out, and The Hollywood Reporter. Other searches would probably find several more, but that's more than sufficient media attention. The article needs to be expanded, not deleted.-Hal Raglan 01:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 25 reviews from major media sources like the LA Times, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Village Voice, NY Daily News, NY Times, NY Post, etc. --Kanamekun 12:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not to be confused with the brilliant 'The Descent' of course but this one was still widely reviewed. As these reviews are easily avaliable online one wonders why this film was nominated in the first place. Nick mallory 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political hip hop[edit]

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

Poorly written essay with no sources. Has been tagged for well over a year now. Ridernyc 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be original research. Fails WP:NOR. Subdolous 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. That there are hip-hop acts with political beliefs is unsurprising, but I can't find anything which demonstrates that it's some kind of unified movement. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless sources can be provided, then it might be worth merging into one of the mainstream hiphop articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus05 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lyrical contents shouldn't dictate a new genre regardless. -RiverHockey 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Citizen Change Will (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:OR. Doctorfluffy 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 15:39, 11/5/2007

Interion[edit]

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

Subject lacks real world notability, does not meet WP:V, WP:N and probably can't be sourced with secondary sources to meet WP:FICT Pilotbob 20:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:20, 30 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, Qst 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy this. east.718 at 15:46, 11/5/2007

Bronzewood Lodge[edit]

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

Subject lacks real world notability, no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT, in universe context only Pilotbob 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not true. I don't appreciate being accused of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Remember WP:AGF. I have made legitimate points regarding the deletion of this article. Additionally, playing a role in a D&D adventure path does not establish real world notability. There are no secondary sources per WP:FICT to establish notability. Pilotbob 22:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that Robbstrd's has not declared his interest that he is the creator this article. Unfortunetly, he has chosen to make unjustified accusations to discredit the nominator of "his" article. I would suggest that he owes the nominator an appology for lack of civility, and his comments be struck from the record on the grounds that he is POV pushing. It would be more constructive if he could add reliable sources to the article, rather than blaming other editors for pointing out that it does not have any. --Gavin Collins 11:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Carlosguitar 05:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandobaris[edit]

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

Article does not pass notability guidelines in WP:FICT, no reliable secondary sources, in universe context only, no real world notability, sources are all D&D universe sources Pilotbob 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 20:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are accusing me of disrupting Wikipedia. Remember WP:AGF and WP:CIA. My concerns regarding this article are legitimate and accusing me of cruftcruft does nothing to address them. Remember, per WP:FICT "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"." This article contains no real world context at all and does not meet the standard of notability for fiction. Pilotbob 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit history shows that you're less interested in making meaningful contributions to Wikipedia than you are in nominating articles you dislike for deletion. Constant criticism without any effort to make things better looks like disruption to me.--Robbstrd 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern here is that this article does not meet Wikipedia guidelines, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is not an appropriate forum to engage in an argument regarding your baseless accusations. Pilotbob 04:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I note that Robbstrd's has not disclosed the fact that he is a major contributor to this article. It is clear to me that he chosen to make these unjustified accusations to discredit the nominator of "his" article. I would suggest that he owes the nominator an appology for lack of civility, and his comments be struck from the record on the grounds that he is POV pushing. --Gavin Collins 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not sure if adding categories & references define me as a "major contributor." I'm simply more interested in improving articles, rather than WP:DICK.--Robbstrd 19:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When someone arguing to keep an article has nothing to offer in its defense but incivil attacks on the deletion nominator, it does not generally bode well for the article. References would be far more impressive and effective. Edison 13:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has six references which is plenty for a stub.
  • Comment Surely "Cruftcruft" is no more an argument than "Cruft" is? BreathingMeat 20:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy Skvortsov[edit]

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

Apparent vanity bio of former athlete. Career includes a 14th place finish in high jumping at the 64 Olympics and a 4th place finish at the 68 Olympics. Also created at Valery Skvortsov ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis that I could not find any references, unless winning a European Indoor Championships in Athletics is in itself notable. Might be written by his son based on the username; user also created article Serge Skvortsov which should be AfD as well. --SesameballTalk 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that anyone who has competed at a high level, such as the Olympic Games, should be considered notable as an athlete. Backing that up is this list, which states someone by that name won a bronze medal in the European championships in 1966. There are some mentions of him on a Google search in relation to the Olympics, but unfortunately, the IOC doesn't seem to list full results online - just medal winners. Weak keep and hope someone with better Google-fu than I can find more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the above nice find, but I still can't find references for the other achievements. But that should be good enough for notability. --SesameballTalk 20:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Default keep, without prejudice to referring back to AfD at a later point. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makedonsko Devoiche[edit]

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

Non notable songs from the region of Macedonia. 95% of the article volumes are the lyrics. There have been endless disputes if the songs originate from Bulgaria or the Republic of Macedonia. I am also nominating the following pages:

ForeignerFromTheEast 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - expanding the articles will help avoiding deletion. Is keeping them for some period of time in which one of he sides interested expands it, a solution? --Laveol T 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I tried to help (well, moderately) to the improvement of the Makedonsko Devoiche but my additions were rejected by one of the editors above. Maybe that source I brought was not perfect [3] (in Macedonian), but it was like "better something than nothing", at least until a better one is found. On the other hand, the other side in this dispute havent provided any source to advocate their version. Now when they lack any counter-argument, suddenly ForeignerFromTheEast insists on deletion. I fail to see why Dzole
  • Delete - Non-notable, unencyclopedic. Subdolous 19:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - How come the article was online all this time without being nominated for deletion, but the whole thing started right after I disputed the Bulgarian POV version of the story? Why it wasnt nominated for deletion when it included a Bulgarian POV?Dzole 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:N. Move to Macedonian WP. MISSINGNO. was here. 20:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)Keep and move I suggest moving to Wikisource. MISSINGNO. was here. 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - From what I can see ForeignerFromTheEast is nominating a number of songs from the Balkans for deletion. What concerns me is that all of these songs are exclusively from Macedonia and from what I can see this is the only reason why they are nominated. It would only be fair to delete all songs from the Balkan region. It is not fair to delete songs due to their cultural heritage. Ireland101 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please discuss the notability of the article in question and not the motives of the nominator. Corvus cornix 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The reason that I posted what I did was because I do not understand why they are nominated for deletion. There are many other songs from the Balkans of the same type of this one such as:Leventikos, Makedonia, Makedonikos antikristos, Sadi Moma and others. The reason that the songs in question should not be deleted is because there is no reason to do so. These songs are extreamly popular threwout the Balkans and choosing to exclusively delete songs due to there cultural heritage seems a little extreme to me. Ireland101 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has a historical backing and is a very popular song threwout the Balkans. As there is no reason to delete it I suggest we keep it.Ireland101 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason the delete.Ireland101 22:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of verifiability violates Wikipedia policy. Corvus cornix 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the external links section [[4]] it does not violate verifiability Ireland101 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1-That is not a reliable source. 2-There is nothing on that page which validates anything other than the song's existence, there is nothing there about its notability. Corvus cornix 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a reliable source as it is an archive of all types of ethnic music. Please provide the link where you found out that it is not reliable. If this [[5]] is not enough for you think that it is notable I do not know what will do the trick. Ireland101 23:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read WP:RS? Where is the proof that this site is fact-checked and is created by people with accepted credentials? In addition, the only thing on that page is the song's lyrics. There is absolutely nothing there that you can write an article about. Wikipedia is not a collection of song lyrics. And don't give me google hits, give me reliable sources. You have provided none. Until you provide reliable sources, as defined at WP:RS, I have nothing further to say on this matter. Corvus cornix 23:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of songs notability from reliable sources
  1. The BBC page may be a partial source, but it's barely more than a tangential mention.
  2. Lyrics pages are not reliable sources.
  3. Lyrics pages are not reliable sources.
  4. Tangential mention.
  5. The fact that a performer performed the source is a so what?
  6. Tangential mention. Corvus cornix 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please re-visit my links as you have not analyzed them correctly. For example sheet music is not lyrics and the Soros foundation is a page devoted to the song unlike what you stated. You should try to portray sites accurately as adding purposeful incorrect descriptions tends to indicate a bias towards the subject. Ireland101 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clearly state what you want. I have fulfilled all of Wikipedia's requirements what more are you looking for? Also please notice how fellow unrelated editors are agreeing that this is not how you portray it. Ireland101 01:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Keep No sources, fails WP:N Chris! ct 22:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Well, it is sourced now. Need cleanup though. Chris! ct 22:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please rethink your decision considering the sources provided above. Ireland101 00:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain which of the links provided are reliable sources. Corvus cornix 22:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I think the link from BBC is good. The others are not reliable sources. That is why I say weak keep. Chris! ct 22:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I don't think that Wikipedia allows for unrelated articles to be added to one deletion, as is the current case with the articles
If anyone could provide any incite it would be helpfull. Ireland101 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After doing some research and viewing the WP:DP it is clear that deletion requests must be for a single article.Ireland101 01:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you keep trying to throw in peripheral arguments? Stick to the subject. There are no sources. Instead of repeatedly arguing that there are and not doing anything about it, find some sources. The fact that you have been unable to do so merely proves that there are none. Corvus cornix 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What peripheral arguments? I was not directing any comment to yourself so that you would have to argue it. I was simply asking for advice about violations of article deletion protocol. Ireland101 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus, the rationale for the nomination was "non-notable songs..." and I'm asserting that's an Anglo-centric (possibly racist) view which misses the real notability of these songs. If sources are the problem then let's look at providing good quality sources, not deleting the articles. If any of these articles is to be deleted I would like them to be dealt with individually too. I'll be very disappointed if some trigger-happy admin decides to just delete these 5 articles without assessing notability on a case by case basis. Donama 05:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Corvus cornix perhaps it is time to take a break. It is obvious you are the only one pushing these views and that other editors see this is a different way then yourself. Perhaps you need to look at the other the other side of the story and not be so one sided. It also seems a bit strange the way you are so determined to have your way.Ireland101 01:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Corvus Cornix. Fails WP:N. Edison 13:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no reliable sources found so far, as per the comments above of User:Corvus cornix - fchd 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - After a request on my talk page from User:Ireland101 to review in light of the BBC and Soros Foundation sources, my opinion of Delete still stands. - fchd 08:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I am the original creator of all these articles. These are some of the most popular folk songs in the Republic of Macedonia, and also the neighboring countries. If that doesn't count as notability, I guess 'Waltzing Matilda' should be deleted as well. As for sources, these songs are common knowledge in Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia and other countries, and part of the everyday life and customs. I am sure that they have been researched a great deal by folklorists and have lots written about them, but I have neither the time nor the motivation to research that, which of course, doesn't mean that someone else will not do that in the future. I see no harm in the articles staying in wikipedia as stubs until somebody spends more time and develops them into scholarly pieces. Deleting relevant articles is not a way to built an encyclopedia. Capricornis 00:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you did not see what I posted above I will re post it.

What kind of sources are you looking for? It is clear that it was of national significance that it was played and featured on the US government website. The International Soros Foundation has a page dedicated to its cultural significance. The BBC has noted it cultural significance. It is notable enough that sheet music is printed and distributed world wide. And if that was not enough, famous non-Macedonian, non-Balkan musicians have played it and added it to their shows. As it is apparent that all of Wikipedia's requirements are met what more are you looking for? Ireland101 03:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times do I have to repeat myself? I already explained why only the BBC source is actually a reliable source. And I have already explained that the sources must help you to write an article from. What information could be gleaned from those sites which could be used to write an article about this song? Corvus cornix 03:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per Corvus cornix. None of those sources are any good. Furthermore, the articles don't even claim notability and consist instead of mainly lyrics; WP:NOT a lyrics database. If these traditional folk songs are important, I'm sure someone would have written about them; see Frog Went A-Courting for what we could expect an article about a notable folk song to look like. Mangojuicetalk 03:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Frog Went A-Courting is a model article of how all folk song articles should look like. It is also my hope that eventually Makedonsko Devoiche can mirror Frog Went A-Courting. I think the answer for why the article in question does not look like Frog Went A-Courting can be found on the history pages for both articles. Firstly Frog Went A-Courting is several years old, Makedonsko devoiche has only existed for a couple of months. The second and more significant difference is that several users have made it their mission to revert the article as much as they can. This is evident as these users have deleted more then they have added. Choosing to delete this article will do nothing positive. What we have to do is work on it and make it an article that will exhibit the multiculturalism and spirit of Wikipedia. Ireland101 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per Ireland101 and Donama. Lack of sources listed is no measure of notability (especially web sources). And I doubt that wikipedians from California can measure notability about balkan-related subject accurately. In fact, only people from that region or background should comment on it. -- P199 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specious argument not worth responding to. Corvus cornix 18:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:N and Corvus Cornix's analysis of the sources providing during this AfD. Mostly not WP:RS and the BBC link is really a stretch for notability. Doctorfluffy 23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep all. Hi All, I really don't see why these articles should be deleted. They are culturally significant songs from the region (apparently -- I am not Macedonian/Bulgarian, so I am going to take everyone's word for it), and there are sources for the information in the article. I agree with ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs) that the article should be more than 5% content, but surely this is an argument for the article to be flagged as a stub, rather than for deletion of the content. Why not leave the articles and flag them so that Macedonian/Bulgarian/interested users can add content and background on the songs? Cheers, AWN AWN2 03:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a lyric guide. Pilotbob 04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that Wikipedia is not a lyric guide, but in the case of culturally significant songs like Waltzing Matilda, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, etc, a Wikipedia article is not out of place. I don't know if these songs are culturally significant though. A BBC article and a US Embassy reference would seem to indicate that they are. Cheers, AWN AWN2 06:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment/Summary I really don't think the case for deletion has been made. The article was nominated because the song was (i) "non-notable", (ii) lacked content, and (iii) caused dispute over the origin of the song. Corvus cornix also cited (iv) lack of sources in the article. (1) The debate here seems to indicate that the song is notable in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and the Balkans generally. (2) I agree that the article lacks content, although this merely highlights why the article should be classified as a stub or added to a WikiProject and/or Noticeboard. Ireland101 provided some good examples of what the article could be expanded to (Leventikos, Makedonikos antikristos, Sadi Moma, other examples could be The Battle Hymn of the Republic, Waltzing Matilda). Capricornis also raised the suggestion that the articles should be kept, to give editors in the future the chance to properly reference the article and add content. (3) The dispute over whether the song is Macedonian or Bulgarian can either be resolved through proper sourcing (e.g. naming the author or first recorded performance), or by appropriate wording to the effect that Macedonians and Bulgarians both consider it to be a local folk song. (4) I agree with Corvus cornix that better sourcing for the article is required, but that implies that the article should be kept, and I think it is still not a good enough reason to the delete the article (stub tags may help resolve this issue, rather than deletion). Further, as Ireland101 points out, (5) multiple deletions cannot be suggested in this format. I think it all points to a keep. Cheers, AWN AWN2 08:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, vote is result of canvassing by User:Ireland101. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue as I did not ask anyone to vote.Ireland101 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Keep all, and name them Macedonian songs, since when are these bulgarian songs?? this is just unbelievable how big the propaganda on wikipedia is. I say, forbid the whole wikipedia website for brainwashing people who dont know better. Doesnt the name of the song, Makedonsko Devojce(Macedonian girl) says enough about where the song comes from? Don't be so stupid and do something right and logical. I and all Macedonians are raised with these songs,these songs exist for many many years as macedonian songs, and now some people who arent macedonian and dont have any clue about macedonia nor the macedonians are telling me (us) what these songs are?! ridiculous!Makedonia 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, vote is result of canvassing by User:Ireland101. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are untrue as I did not ask anyone to vote. Continuing to make inaccurate comments will result in a personal attack complaint. Please retract your statements ForeignerFromTheEast Ireland101 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will not as you very selectively attracted the attention of people that will vote against deletion. ForeignerFromTheEast 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the canvassing debate is getting away from the main issue, and has the potential to get nasty. Even prior to the canvassing debate, it has been my opinion that this AfD should be judged on the merits of the arguments (i.e. has the criteria stated in the AfD been adequately dealt with, or has a suitable course of action been found), rather than the numbers of people voting. At the moment, by my crude count, the vote is roughly even, but I think of more importance is the fact that the nominator's concerns (and the issue of sources) have either been addressed, or can be addressed by properly flagging the article as requiring more content and sources. Adding the song to a Noticeboard or WikiProject (not necessarily only the Macedonian or Bulgarian WP -- perhaps also a Balkan, or Folk Music WP) will allow other users to add content. Deleting the article will not increase the knowledge, add to the quality of Wikipedia, or allow editors the chance to add content. Again, I think it all points the article being keeped. Cheers, AWN AWN2 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AWN2, we should not let unrelated arguments interfere with this issue. Besides the fact that the accusation of canvasing does not mean anything and cannot affect the AfD we should stick to the main issue. As I have stated before these articles have the full potential to reach the quality of the other articles that have existed for years. I think as a status quo has been reached in votes it is a good idea for the articles to be kept and an opportunity given to all Wikipedia members to add constructive changes to these articles and make them into something Wikipedia would be proud to display. It is important to remember that these articles have only existed for a couple of months and that may be the reason for the lack of content compared to the other articles which have existed for years. Ireland101 02:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ireland101's comments above are the most salient so far: this is a young article, and the best thing for it is to get attention from editors over time (this point was also made early on by Laveol and Capricornis). Take a look at the early versions of The Battle Hymn of the Republic -- it was a pretty inauspicious start too! I think we should close this AfD, apply the proper flags to the article(s), and move on. I, for one, have a few ideas for the article, but don't want to start editing while the debate is ongoing. ForeignerFromTheEast, can we take on board the suggestions from you and Corvus cornix, and close the AfD? Cheers, AWN AWN2 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource articles are a bit different. This article is more similar to The Battle Hymn of the Republic and Waltzing Matilda Ireland101 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, they aren't, since those articles discuss the history of the song and the lyrics, and have reliable sources, something these articles ... lack. Corvus cornix 00:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for now at least! Cheers, AWN AWN2 01:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one answered my valid question: How come the article wasnt nominated for deletion before? This whole thing started when I contested the Bulgarian POV in it. You have the history and all, check it. Before that, the Bulgarian editors not only that didnt have problem with the article's existence of Wikipedia, but they didnt forget to add "Bulgarian song" to it, like they do to every Macedonian song article. After I contested, ForeignerFromTheEast lacking any valid counter-arguments suddenly decided to nominate it for deletion (to mop it under the carpet). Corvus cornix, you ask for souces, how come the Bulgarian POV in this and other articles was tolerated without any source? Dzole 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're never going to answer you. Anything that the Bulgarians don't like on Wikipedia they will change to their liking unltil someone questions their motives at which point they will delete it. Alex 202.10.89.28 02:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dzole brings up a valid point. It seems this AfD was created because of disputes regarding the "ethnicity" of the article as far as I can see. It was a big coincidence the way ForeignerFromTheEast nominated the article for deletion right after he got into a dispute about it.Ireland101 02:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed already, everything is so obvious its shameful. But back to the subject: the song is not a traditional song but it has been composed by the famous Macedonian singer Jonče Hristovski based on the traditional macedonian folk music in 1964. Little by little the song became popular among the commong folks in the Balkans, and thus, its often mistaken for a traditional song. The copyrights for the song have been inherited by Jonče Hristovski's daughters after his death ("Vest" Daily Newspaper Issue: 502 3/11/2002, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia (in Macedonian)). These claims were denied by the Bulgarian editors, however as I already said they just reverted the article to the unsourced Bulgarian POV without providing any counter-argument. Strangely Corvix didnt react back then Dzole 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While these sources are disputed because they contain tangential mentions, it should be noted that none of them mention Bulgaria in any way. There are exactly ZERO sources suggesting the song is Bulgarian. All references to Bulgaria in the article should be removed because the idea that it is a Bulgarian song is based on the notion that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian, not that it is popular in Bulgaria (which it probably isn't) or was written by a Bulgarian. The language dispute has nothing to do with this. Therefore, I must say keep. If anyone else has time to find reliable sources, great. And to the Bulgarian editors, give at least one source saying it is Bulgarian. Cant' find one? That's what I thought. Alex 202.10.89.28 03:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa people... let's get this AfD cleared up before editing the article!! This AfD was initiated based on 3 things, and I think we can demonstrate that these will be adequately dealt with (see my comments above). The issue of sources (raised by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs)) was raised after the AfD, and is (I believe) separate to it. However, the issue of sourcing is a valid one -- the arguments about valid, reputable sources should apply to the article, as they do to all Wikipedia articles. If anyone -- be they Macedonian, Bulgarian or Guatemalan -- can provide sourced information about the origin of the song, this should go into the article, or the article's Talk Page. The information provided by Dzole is a really good start, and should go on the Talk Page as a basis for proper sourcing of the article. Once ForeignerFromTheEast has removed the AfD the issues relating to the article can be discussed on the talk page until a resolution is reached. This AfD has been argued on the issues, let's keep it that way :-) Cheers, AWN AWN2 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im afraid some of you fail to notice the real problem here. Its obviously not about any sources anymore, its about ForeignerFromTheEast's and Laveol's obvious tendention to push Bulgarian POV specificaly in Macedonian articles. Theres no Macedonian article that is not rewritten by them and this normally includes the Macedonian folk songs too. You have history versions and all to check it out just dont try to convince me that im wrong. Im just stating the obvious facts and I wrote Foreigner himself about his tendentious behaviour, beacause of which, all this started in the first place Dzole 07:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/procedure: I should have done this earlier, but I skimmed through the AfDs guidelines, and AfDs are not decided based on a vote (→ How to discuss an AfD), so I think now that the criteria of the AfD have been addressed, the AfD can be closed. I asked the AfD nominator (ForeignerFromTheEast (talk · contribs)) whether he would agree to close the AfD with a keep at 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC), so let's allow a reasonable time to pass (let's say 04:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)?) so that ForeignerFromTheEast can respond, and then close the AfD and edit the article appropriately (i.e. neutral point of view, provide sources, civility, etiquette, and avoiding edit wars). Once the AfD is closed, the article should not be radically changed without sources, and please use the Talk Page before making changes which may be considered controversial. If you do make a controversial change, make sure it is properly sourced, otherwise it is likely to be justifiably reverted very quickly!! If the AfD is removed, I propose the following actions:[reply]
  1. Removal of AfD tag.
  2. Addition of Music of Bulgaria tag or removal of Music of the Republic of Macedonia tag (so that either both or neither box is displayed until the origin of the song is determined through sources). (The fact that Bulgarian language hits on Google are returned means that the song is at least known in Bulgaria.)
  3. Not labeling the song as exclusively Macedonian or Bulgarian until the origin or writer of the song can be reliably identified
  4. Discussion on Talk Page of origin controversy.
Anyone have any thoughts?
Cheers, AWN AWN2 08:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't work that way. I will continue to object until the sourcing issue is resolved, and that is my one and only objection. If you can find reliable soruces, I'll withdraw my objections, but so far, none have been forthcoming. Even if the original nominator withdraws his objection, that will not change my objections, and therefore the nomination must continue until an admin closes it. Properly. Corvus cornix 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Look people, please make up your mind which is the primary reason for deletion? Notability? As mentioned above, one can find numerous mentions of the songs: let's take Zajdi Zajdi for an example: here, here. The entire newspaper article (in macedonian); another one, speculating a copyvio in 300 (film). It has 99,100 nominal GHits in Cyrillic and 147,000 in Latin. Cover versions were perfomed by Toše Proeski ([18]), Mizar, Smak, Boki Milošević ([19]) and Ferus Mustafov ([20]). Is that enough to establish notability?
    Now, issue 2: lack of sourcing? AFD is not a cleanup. There are some online sources that should hold the water at least for a reasonable stub, and the songs are likely to be described in more detail in some printed ethnographic study, should anyone pay a visit to a library. Duja► 14:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not once have my objections about sourcing been about cleanup, but entirely about notability. Corvus cornix 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have stated what you are looking for please look at the links Duja has provided. These songs have been preformed by people like Ferus Mustafov, Leb i Sol and Tose Proeski. Tose Proeski was a pop star all around the Balkans and toured the world. The fact that these people recorded these songs should say something about the notability of the songs. As you have said that this is your only objection and that now the notability of the songs has been proven please withdraw your objections as you have stated. Ireland101 21:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Notability established, some NPOV concerns, though. PeaceNT 12:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlsbad Gap[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion because this is a non-notable location for skateboarding. There are no reliable third party sources about the subject, sources have been requested since September 2007, and all we keep getting is more skatecruft and vandalism, and of course no sources. Burntsauce 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No reliable sources given. Not notable. See WP:V and WP:NOTE. Subdolous 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Through research reveals that this skate spot is quite notable as it is in several news sources and magazines. See San Diego Union Tribune & Transworld Skateboarding Magazine. --Hdt83 Chat 01:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most notable spots in skateoarding's history. It even has an issue of ON video magazine dedicated to it.--KoRnholio8 07:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Contrary to the belief of some, skateboarding is a major sport and this is one of the most important and notable places in the sport. Sources provided by Hdt83 further demonstrat its notability. --Oakshade 15:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Ρх₥α 17:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bullwinkle's Family Restaurant[edit]

Bullwinkle's Family Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Deletion nomination Non-notable restaurant. I have eaten at one of these, but that doesn't make it notable. There are no references nor are there any real assertions of notability here. Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Additionally, it must be noted that this article is primarily about a single restaurant in the chain, not even the company. --SesameballTalk 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like a problem that can be resolved through editing, since this was an actual notable and nationwide restaurant chain on par with the likes of Chuck E. Cheese's. Burntsauce 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - it does seem notable. After reading the above comment, I attempted different search parameters (which I probably should have tried originally); leaving out the word 'family' returns quite a few references. Changed vote. --SesameballTalk 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP and don't be such an WP:OSTRICH. Burntsauce 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Subdolous 19:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep article seems notable and sourced Chris! ct 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show, where a brief mention of this endeavor could be made. Popular as the moose and flying squirrel have been, they've never been successful in marketing, whether for Cheerios, Hardee's Restaurants, or what sounds like an interesting failed restaurant. Mandsford 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chrishomingtang. JJL 00:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sake of moose and squirrel, keep and clean up. Really needs a better outline of history, but they were once pretty prolific - now, it appears that they have a couple here in the pacific northwest (one in Tukwila, no less!), but that's about it?... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete apparently small non notable american restaurant chain. whoop de do. Jcuk 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Smallbone[edit]

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

Deletion nomination Article makes no assertion of notability. This is just a list of bit parts the actor has appeared in. Holding a job, even one like "actor", does not make one notable. What does make one notable is extensive coverage in multiple, reliable sources. I see no evidence of that here. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's an orphaned bio apparently written by the subject (see use note on the image he uploaded) --SesameballTalk 18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO with the bit parts involved. No outside reliable coverage apparent. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 13:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect as it duplicates all content in the main series article, and is not a notable fictional character. Bearian 17:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mort Metzger[edit]

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

This character is not sufficiently notable for a separate page. This should either be deleted or merged into the series in another place. Also fails WP:FICT Pilotbob 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Dramas[edit]

Hong Kong Dramas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete unsourced article that I first thought was an actual TV series, but seems to be the generic: exactly what it says a Hong Kong drama is a drama shown on TV in Hong Kong. Nothing to show that these differ in any meaningful ways than any other city's dramas. Carlossuarez46 17:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No actual content worth saving - just a list of HK TV stations. Colonel Warden 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's nothing to indicate that article is trying to demonstrate "Hong Kong drama" as some type of recognized genre. --SesameballTalk 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. See WP:NOT. Subdolous 19:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 19:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a stub, Hong Kong dramas are a style, in Asian Television industry Hong Kong is as important as New York or Hollywood. Yes the current article is useless but look at Taiwanese drama which is a good modelfor what this could becomeMoheroy 08:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete ; if you want a copy to merge, just ask. --Haemo 01:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Blight[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character per WP:FICT. Reliable secondary sources do not appear to exist. 350 ghits ("-wikipedia") from mostly random fansites and forums. Doctorfluffy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voiced by Meg Ryan and with respectable references like NYT and Cal Poly - seems good enough to me. I hate fiction is insufficient reason to delete. Colonel Warden 18:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FICT, "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources." Both of those links are only passing mentions; one has simply the name as an example of the show's villains and the other is briefly discussing the appearances of all female characters on the show, with no particular emphasis on Dr. Blight. I wouldn't classify either as "substantial coverage". Doctorfluffy 18:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So we have No consensus. This seems normal for such topics. Colonel Warden 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, hopefully more people will weigh in and offer their own conclusions, but I see it as follows. Under WP:FICT, a topic must receive direct coverage to be presumed notable - an article about a parent topic of a given topic does not necessarily indicate notability. Your sources are primarily about the show itself and clearly indicate that it's notable, but however have only limited mentions of Doctor Blight herself and as such do not qualify her for notability. There is a lot of precedent for various fictional universes. I don't really want to get into other stuff, but a good example is Harry Potter, which is generally considered a much more notable piece of culture than Captain Planet. Nearly every minor subject (characters, locations, etc) article has been condensed into more compact lists. Doctorfluffy 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep She's got an action figure and everything. Artw 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that she has an action figure, but my intepretation of policy is that is deemed notable only if the merchandise is covered by reliable secondary sources. Toylines exist for nearly every fictional universe, but that doesn't mean that every character of those universes is notable. Doctorfluffy 18:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Doctorfluffy. No reliable secondary sources are given. Small amounts of media coverage does not constitute notability. The Cal Poly paper is not a source. See WP:NOTE. Subdolous 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 21:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The New York Times reference is exteremly trivial, and the other article is even worse. Non notable. Crazysuit 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a CP article; significant adversary worthy of note within fictive world -- Simon Cursitor 13:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (shorten and merge) to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. This character fails WP:FICT due to a lack of secondary sources with substantial coverage. Not every person place and thing in every fictional work needs its own article to recapitulate everything disclosed about it in the fictional work. Edison 13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge per Edison Will (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have significant coverage in multilple reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Without reliable secondary sources, there is no justification for this plot summary. --Gavin Collins 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap."-- Masterzora 20:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to an essay on Meta which has been basically unchanged in the 5 years it has existed does not somehow override the core policies of Wikipedia, including verifiablity, reliable sourcing, and notablity. In fact, the modern version of your argument is WP:PAPER, which specifically states: This policy is not a free pass for inclusion: Articles still must abide by the appropriate content policies and guidelines, in particular those covered in the five pillars. Please try to be familiar with current policies when participating in AfDs. Doctorfluffy 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Carlosguitar 05:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoof Beat[edit]

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

High school newspaper with no claim of notability in article. Had been redirected to Northside College Preparatory High School, but original editor has restored prior version. Rather than get into an edit war, I think a discussion of keep, merge/redirect, or delete is order. Fabrictramp 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to maintain article history of merge under GFDL, protect if need be. Otherwise an admin would have to fish this article's history into the high school's. --Dhartung | Talk 17:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources given. Subdolous 19:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as Dhartung suggests. Doesn't need its own article - it can be discussed in the high school's piece. Protect as required. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dhartung. Edison 13:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malvinas 2032[edit]

Malvinas 2032 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod. No assertion of notability in game article; official website is dead. Disputer claims there was substantial coverage, but has provided none. Percy Snoodle 16:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete on the basis that I can't find any 3rd party coverage at all. Just to note, the publisher's webpage for the game does exist, although as stated in nom the official standalone website does not.--SesameballTalk 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete with the proviso that if a Spanish speaker digs up some sources, change to Keep — iridescent 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plumiferous[edit]

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

Deletion nom possible hoax, google search turns up nada. Also, even if it is a real word, this is merely a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, per WP:DICDEF. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meierism[edit]

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

Deletion nomination: Possible hoax article. google search turns up squadoosh, unless this concept exists ONLY in print media, this looks like a hoax. Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've found one article about "Meier's syndrome" [21].--victor falk 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks unrelated. What's described here is a neurological disorder affecting visual perception, the syndrome referenced there appears to be a physical abnormality of the eyes, falling under opthamology. Probably just a coincidence. Unless the author can give us some references, it looks like a typical hoax — no useful search hits, short unsourced article. Thomjakobsen 18:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Missed that. Maybe I suffer from meierism or Meier's syndrome? or both? Delete--victor falk 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone's still wavering, the Meier's syndrome mentioned in the french version of that paper is "Meier-Blumberg-Imahorn syndrome", which I'm sure will be familiar to everyone as idiopathic hypercalciuria with bilateral macular colobomata :) Symptoms include blood in the urine, but thankfully not visions of tiny dogs and toy cars. Thomjakobsen 19:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. From BrettMeierism (now deleted) by the same author, we can assume that this is an attack on a person called Brett Meier. -- RHaworth 19:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Google gives 20ish hits from random Civilization forums that appear unrelated. Doctorfluffy 04:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dim 3[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability, let alone references to establish such. TexasAndroid 15:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree, there's a link to the Apple site, and other links as well, also links to games that use Dim3, and those sites link back to dim3 as well.

Be more specific please, just how "notable" do you want? infestedsmith 17:09, 24 October 2007

    • Sources are required to be reliable, independent, and non-trivial. Despite the puppet parade going on with this AFD, that requirement is not lessened. - TexasAndroid 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is hard to get good sources for those kinds of things despite how popular they are. I have more reasons I can't bother writing unless there is any real opposition to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkcraft (talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a piece of OSS, it's one of a handful of game engines available (excluding alpha-alpha and abandoned stuff which abounds on SourceForge and other such repositories). Sehr Gut 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what kind of source could be sited? It's a program, the program itself is the source. Does anyone disagree or is the issue settled?Tmsgames 02:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)tmsgames[reply]
    • Reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources are needed to show that the engine is notable. Basically, that it is being discussed in reliable media circles, independant of the engine itself, in a non-trivial way (passing mentions do not count). - TexasAndroid 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I mean for goodness sakes, the danged download link is right there, go DL it and use it, and there ar sites that use it, it's on Apple, what more is needed? It's not an article about the French Revolution! It's just a page for the Game Engine Dim3, and plenty of people know about it.

Sorry, didn't know KEEP meant it was a vote, I'm new to Wiki. :Pinfestedsmith 22:24, 25 October 2007

    • Also, second vote from the same account. - TexasAndroid 13:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dim3 is a very active project that's featured as a staff pick on Apple's site; the message board has 200+ users and about 13,000 posts and a number of games in development. I appreciate the desire to clean up entries, but the software is very active an very useful for many people. The last release had sustained downloads of over 10 gig a day. (dim3 Author Brian Barnes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.221.172 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dim3 is well known in the mac dev community. Lack of "notability" notion is completely rubbish. If you (TexasAndroid) have no idea no what "Dim3" is or what community it has, and no motivation to visit the listed sites kindly keep your admin powers in check please, and redact the deletion request. Wikipedia has more than enough trouble with vandals without deleting items of software that you personally have no knowledge about. --OPless 20:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, this is the author again. I'd like to note that nothing on the dim3 wikipedia page is mine; I will likely never edit it as I trust my users to do that (and I want the page to be as non-partisan as possible.) I do not, though, want this page to disappear, and I'm wondering if you and I could talk about it over email so I could get to you whatever you felt you needed to make it "notable." dim3 was a staff pick on Apple's download side, which should make the software notable right there (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/development_tools/dim3.html), and also listed in Apple's game engine site (http://www.apple.com/games/articles/2005/08/gamebuildingtools/), but, again, if that's not enough, please pull my email from this account I just created and let's talk about it (ggadwa). When you called the users asking for it to be kept a "puppet parade" I'm afraid your mind has already been made up, and would like the chance to personally try change it.

I apologize if this might be considered out-of-line or the wrong place for this, but I want to do everything I can to fix whatever problems you feel the entry might have. I must say that it was your prompting that caused the article to get much better from it's original state, so I thank you for putting that fire under the community, and any more steering would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggadwa (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another outside link from a internet games magazine: http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=312 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggadwa (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Texas, we have two reliable sources, an Apple article (in which Dim3 is listed is a hot game engine) and an IMG article. We have just as many sources as the Unity article, and just because it's a small game engine, doesn't mean it's not worthy of being in Wikipedia. It can't be a bigger one unless it gets more people. Also, I'm not voting, I'm answering things. You are one user, get someone else who agrees with you and maybe, but right now we have sources, and we have users, and we have games, that fulfills the requirements. So what's the problem? infestedsmith 9:03, 27 October 2007
  • Oh dear. Alex, please avoid doing that. Your argument is fine, and I agree with it, but getting angry, and accusing personal is *not* a good way for any other user who comes along to want to support the article. Gordon CSA 15:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gaven just what are you talking about? Look at this Unity (Game Engine) and tell me what here makes it notable compared to dim3? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infestedsmith (talk • contribs) 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this one deserves to as well. See WP:WAX. Subdolous 18:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, is it just me, or do you admins have no intention of discussing this? We're making points here, but no one replies and no one comments, what's going on? infestedsmith —Preceding comment was added at 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everybody, let's take this one step at a time. TexasAndroid says no notability; now Gaven says no secondary sources to demonstrate reliability. Let's look at Wikipedia's own definition of reliable sources:

A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source about biology. Authors may be reliable outside their primary field if recognized as having expertise in a secondary area of study. In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

I have two links from Apple; one where dim3 is a staff pick, which means Apple has used the software and finds it something it would recommend to users and one where Apple lists it on it's game creation page. These are, by Wikipedia's definition, a trustworthy or authoritative staff. Who would be more an authoritity on OS X software and who would be more trustworthy then Apple itself? What could be more notable for OS X software then be mentioned as a staff pick by Apple? This is the point of debate; repeating the "not reliable" phrase does not counter this argument. Please explain the continuation of this delete.Ggadwa 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)13:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, the Apple pages are not independent; but I was able to find one decent writeup without too much effort.[22] This software is really at the lowest end of the notability scale (compare with Earth, Moon, Sun, Charles Darwin, you get the drift I am sure), so the encyclopedia we are building wont miss this article if it is deleted -- so stop commenting ad nauseum here, and go fix the article ffs. Half you guys are IT people, so you should be able to write an excellent article - it needs to explain the technical design, and answer questions readers might have, such as when was it established. John Vandenberg 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitraty Section Break[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John Vandenberg 16:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - Notability guidelines must be followed for this article to stay. However, it appears that secondary, verifiable sources are available and need to be referenced within the article. If secondary, verifiable sources cannot be provided, the article needs to go. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite all the faulty arguements on the keep side by the article's authors (their arguements ammount to "it exists" and "I like it" neither of which are criteria for having an article in Wikipedia), there does not appear to be reliable, completely independent coverage of this software. ALL I can find at a google search is reprints of press releases written by the company itself, a few blog postings, and this [23] which should speak for itself... I added a tag above to address this. Also, the arguement that other, entirely deletable articles on Wikipedia does not make the shortcomings of this one disappear. Also, the existance of articles on NOTABLE subjects bearing a superficial commonality with this one also does not make this one notable as well. What would make it notable is extensive, truly independant coverage, of which this has NONE. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is the MacWorld link provided above by John Vandenberg one of these press-release reprints you mention, or is it independant? If independant, it might actually give us atleast one reliable sourcing mention. - TexasAndroid 17:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That forum article was created to get users to come fix up the page, and while it appeared to have started a small wave of single use accounts, that was not the original intention. I'm not really sure how it's speaking for itself other than saying that the users are interested in fixing the article, and some of them need to learn more about wikipedia before editing. Which can be said about everything. And yes, I'm a dim3 user myself, though I'm not going to give a keep/delete opinion, as I think that should be done by outside editors. 162.84.76.224 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N asks for multiple references. We have 1. 1 is not multiple. I would like to see more before making a decision to keep this. While MacWorld is a reliable source, I would like to see more reviews in other sources. If this is a notable piece of software, it is bound to be discussed in many reliable sources. There are dozens of reliable trade journals and magazines that cover this industry; if ONE and ONLY ONE has done any sort of extensive review of this software, then that seems to fail the "multiple" requirement of establishing notability. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We now have over 5 links to reviews, is that enough or is there something else we should do?Tmsgames 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)tmsgames[reply]

The AFD was just relisted this morning to get more input, and thus will likely run another 4-5 days. The number of reviews may very well effect the end result, but really has little bearing on the ongoing AFD process. AFD runs for certain amounts of time, not until a certain number of reviews/references or some such are generated. That all said, if I had to guess based on the discussion to date, this is most likely to end in a "No Consensous" descision, which defaults to keep. - TexasAndroid 20:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So basically the point is that dim3 has to have people writing about it without the author or company doing anything for it to be notable? Call me crazy, but doesn't that REALLY limit things? I thought wikipedia was a place where people could find information on anything, no matter how small, apparently that's not the case. Why is the Apple article NOT independent? Brian doesn't own Apple! Is there no mention of the IMG article? Or does that not count for some reason? infestedsmith
If you read way up at the top, I mentioned needing reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources way back when this began. Each of those three words is important, and you appear to finally be realizing the "independent" part. You are wrong about what the project is about with your "no matter how small" thought. WP is about documenting notable things, not everything. Please read WP:NOTE for fuller details on the concept of notability as it is practiced on the project. - TexasAndroid 20:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of anything else, it's important to remember that WP is a tertiary source, IE we craft articles from secondary sources - commentators who review or discuss the subject in question. Original research is a big no-no, we have to use reliable sources which in turn demonstrate the notability of the subject. That's general stuffs, I'd like to look at the sources in the article before a yay or nay..Someone another 20:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break 2[edit]

At this point, I've read the wikipedia rules a number of times and attempting to do everything in my power (aside from editing the article, which is something I won't do as I'm the author.) The hang-up still seems to be 'reliable', 'independent', and 'non-trivial.' As noted, there are a number of links, some are reviews, and the most important ones come from Apple itself. My question is this, and I think it's the crux of this discussion -- which one of the requirements are these breaking? Take the Apple one for instance.

Independent: I have NO relationship with Apple, I'm just a developer. I have no developer license nor have paid Apple (or gotten any money) from Apple. My software works on OS X, and that's the totality of the relationship.

Non-Trivial: Obviously, Apple is non-trivial, it's a large well known company. Is it reliable?

Reliable: That's sort of a value judgment, but I think it would be a good call to say yes.

The others are reviews (from mac oriented magazines or game oriented sites.) None of these were written or lead by myself. Are they independent because of this? Yes. Non-Trivial? Reliable? Those are almost judgment calls.

Again, I didn't actually know about this article until my users (who created it and keep it) noted it on the message board. Have we discussed it on the message board? Yes, we have, but the point is that my users are vocal, this is certainly not a puppet parade. And, as you look, what this has all done is gotten us to discuss what needs to be in the article to make it fit with what the admins would like. This is what every community lead project should be like. Bring in the new people, help prod them along, and grow things in the right way. As Colonel Warden mentioned.

The dim3 article obviously started out as a "newbie" article, full of things that would tag it for instant deletion -- but now has obviously grown way beyond that to a much stronger and better cited article, and we are discussing it and continuing to grow it with these ideas in mind.

As for independent cites (For Jaryon32), I think you need to consider the MacWorld, Inside Mac Games, and Apple's site as 2 non-press release articles and a staff-pick at Apple. Ggadwa 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are Sock puppets and then there are Meat Puppets. One person pretending be many is the first. Multiple people acting in a sort of hive-mind is the latter. This AFD roused up people on your board, and a number of them flocked here to defend the article. That really is meat puppetry, and it's what I meant by "Puppet parade". They really were all acting in concert via the outside the project discussions. A flock of brand-new accounts showning up on a deletion debate is far from a one-time occurrence around here. But it's still not something we enjoy seeing. - TexasAndroid 21:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your reference here and apologize if the community got a little out of hand; but as you see it a lot you can also see why the community might be roused to action, but again I apologize. I do hope though, that after the AFD started, it certainly did have a profound and good effect on the article.Ggadwa 03:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And as I said above, my current best-guess is that this debate will eventually be closed as No Consensous, which defaults to Keep. There are a few too many Delete comments for a full Keep result, but even disreguarding the SPA accounts from the start of this, there are more than enough Keep opinions that I really doubt that the article is going away. And the debate has actually brought out what appear to be two good solid references to show that the engine does indeed have notability. Marginal notability, maybe, but still notability. :) - TexasAndroid 13:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Macworld and Inside Mac Games seem perfectly reliable to me, in turn satisfying notability's multiple sources requirement, which is the crux of the matter. Macworld's article is not huge, but it's coverage, whereas the Inside Mac Games article is substantial and should provide plenty of material for cites.Someone another 20:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A short burst of coverage is not proof of notability, according to WP:N. The key here is significant coverage, which I do not believe is present. Subdolous 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are dated 2004 and 2006 - they're at different stages of the software's development rather than "a short burst of present news coverage". As far as significant coverage goes, both sources pass the points raised in WP:N, to my eyes (sources address the subject directly in detail, no original research is needed, more than trivial but may be less than exclusive). I must admit I'd much prefer having more sources and can find no others currently, but I'm unconvinced that this fails WP:N.Someone another 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to have decent sources, could use more. A bit of cleanup couldn't hurt it. How does this fit under WP:SOFTWARE? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. A review in 2004 in InsideMacGames and an article in 2006 in Macworld - that's not a lot of independent press coverage, so I'd say this is borderline notable. Which I think should default to keep. --Allefant 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least 2 references in reliable sources have been provided, as well as some of borderline reliability, have been provided. I am convinced upon reading those that this one BARELY keeps its head above water... but it does, and thus is notable. I have struck through my prior vote. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Its worth mentioning that dim3 is used by a number of academic institutions (including Bath Spa University) for coursework projects. Bath, for example, used dim3 as the core for the project to teach students how to set up convincing atmospheric environment contextual soundscapes. Such projects are rarely listed outside of the these institutions. The accessibility of the dim3 engine allows people unfamiliar with coding to radially develop interactive 3d environments. The engine has its pro's and con's and wikipedia is meant to be an unbiased information repository.

The original article was very much a formatted Press Release and left to neglect. Flagging the article for deletion has definitely spurred the "MeatPuppets" to improved the quality of the entry.

It should also be noted that dim3 is one of the few 3d game editing pakages avalible to mac users. The others being unity and torque (and gtkRadient). There is a lack of promotion on the behalf of the engine's developers - and as such there are far fewer users than competing products. I personally came across it from an IGN review. IGN Dim3 Articles

Personally I treat wikipedia as the fount of all knolege, and removing something that is of great interest to Mac users because it was badly written would be a sore shame.

I think it would help the organization if a "Mac Game Engines" category was created or given its own sub-section on [List_of_game_engines]. This would allow a comparison grid of the available products. (I don't think that concatenating the dim3 article into another would be a good idea)

As for a reason why dim3 is notable, It is the only free 3d game engine with editing tools avalibe on the Mac . (Quake 3 + gtkRadient isnt practical for most users)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.96.106 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but all that is irrelevant to if we want an article about it on Wikipedia or not. Things like WP:V, WP:OR and (in our case here) WP:N are relevant for that. So, no matter how useful, interesting, popular, whatever something is, it needs to have those independent reliable "secondary" sources or gets deleted. --Allefant 17:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IGN Dim3 Articles is very much relevant. Have you looked at the articles linked on that page? Detailed reviews of the dim3 engine from a 3rd party, highly reputable, online gaming site. For those who coudn't be bothered to click though here's the direct link to the IGN review. http://www.insidemacgames.com/features/view.php?ID=312 Regarding Notability, its entirely subjective to a persons' opinion. And, in this case, to use it as a reason to remove an article by someone who hasn't demonstrated any knowledge of the field would be wrong. Would you let a french cooking specialist throw a book on 15th century poetry out of a library because he couldn't see its relevance? I have met several completely random strangers in the street who have used dim3. anecdotal, yes - but still proof of its 'notability'


Regarding WP:OR. Not really relivant here. Under those guidelines, the author contributing to the article is about as primary sourced information as possible - which ironically also would count against the article under the advertising guidelines.
WP:V is covered by the reviews (IGN etc), the download being on apple.com, the posts on the forum, and the fact hat there are several games already available based on the engine.

Admins, i think we need another arbitrary section break—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.236.243 (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitraty Section Break 3[edit]

While it seems that the consensus is at least a default keep, it can't hurt to add more links: http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=292 This is basically a clearing house for 3D engines. It has reliability (as there are reviews) but would be a judgment call for notability. Some good places for potential cites.Ggadwa 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've culled a few sections of the article that are not written in an encyclopedic manner, and I've sprinkled with added "[citation needed]" everywhere. To all the newcomers: those markers should not be removed until a third party reliable source can be used as a citation - user submitted stories dont cut the mustard. Also, the article still doesnt tell me when it was first released, or under exactly which license it was released. John Vandenberg 23:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I dont know if the citations for the data folder and the editor are really necessary. I agree with the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.236.243 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In general, conversations on improving the article really should go to Talk:Dim 3. This AFD is really not the right place for such discussions, especially since this AFD will not remain easily linked to the article, while the Talk page is permenantly linked to it. And just in general, that's the right place for discussing improving the article, not here. - TexasAndroid 12:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand, but for me the questions I'm asking aren't so much to improve the article but make it compliant; and as many times as I've read the guidelines the very nature that the delete is a discussion shows that there is opinion in the enforcement of the guidelines, so it's nice to know if I anything I find is something that the admins consider useful.
This brings me to an important question -- being the author of dim3 -- I've stayed away from editing the article as I assume that's the #1 red flag for deletion. If I edited it I'd stay away from anything that's opinion and stick with just wrote repetition of facts, changes in the current release version, cite fixes, etc. I'd like to improve, but I'm afraid the minute I edit it (to add the cites people would like above), that it would become a giant red flag for deletion. What's the policy -- in the admins eyes -- on this?
Thirdly, would the project's webpage be considered a good cite for the editor editing maps and the animator animating? Being that it's very much something that is obvious, it's not likely to get mentioned anywhere else. Like above, I don't know if a citation for the data folder is really necessary as it is also self explainatory, but that section could be further broken up into formats of the data which could be cited.
Again, sorry for all the comments but as I said before, the goal here is to make sure what gets edited is in alignment with what the guidelines and what the admins think.Ggadwa 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many people edit their own projects (and some even their own biographies, if you ever have heard of a certain Jimbo Wales), and while it's not considered the best idea, it often is ok (see WP:COI). E.g. if you fix some mistake in the article, nothing wrong with that. If you add links to self-written positive reviews, and delete any negative reviews someone else adds, then that would be a problem. Usually even that would not be a reason to delete the article though, just maybe to ban you if you continue doing it :)
About the webpage, the project's webpage would be a primary source, which is good as source for certain details - any cite is better than un-referenced info. The article just can't be sourced as a whole from only primary sources - Wikipedia does require some secondary sources before there can be an article. --Allefant 21:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand the citations. Could you give an example of a citation for a map editor?Tmsgames 23:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)tmsgames[reply]
I replied on the article's talk page. --Allefant 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that games made by other users would be a good secondary, and arguably primary, source. There are also an increasing number of tutorials for using and scripting the game engine available on the official forum (hosted by idevgames.com), which are all accessible to unregistered users. Would it be better to spin them off onto a separate site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.103.44 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was quick and dirty merge. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1632 Tech Manual[edit]

1632 Tech Manual (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article for a sub-forum of a sub-community of an online forum. Fails WP:WEB. No independent reliable coverage, no awards that I could find. Otto4711 16:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Neil ☎ 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Weil[edit]

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

Suggesting deletion because this person is not notable and there are no reliable, non-trivial third party publications about the subject. Weil possibly played a part in founding a company (along with what appears to arguably be 3 other "founders") but there are no reliable third party sources on THAT either, therefore I stand behind the delete point of view. Burntsauce 15:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He created the first practical Webring (although he didn't invent the concept), and there's reliable third-party recognition of that: salon.com (see page 3 particularly), New York Times, The Atlantic. There are other news hits from "sage weil" webring, but they're subscription-only. Thomjakobsen 19:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with webring per WP:BLP1E. —David Eppstein 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E applies. Weil is notable only for the single act of creating the first Web ring, which is already adequately covered in Webring. The rest of his life need not be documented and we should presume in favor of privacy per WP:BLP. --Malcolmxl5 18:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only source gives a trivial mention of him. Not notable as a professor. Notability of his invention is not inherited. Bearian 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rape (word)[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, etymologies are the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Powers T 15:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Dragonsbane[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} and {{unreferenced}} removed by User:Giftruns without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 15:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirected to Nintendo GameCube Broadband Adapter. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo GameCube network games[edit]

List of Nintendo GameCube network games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Very few items on this list, virtually no possibility of it ever being expanded whatsoever. Just because other video game consoles have such lists does not mean that everyone needs these lists. A Link to the Past (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Stawinoga[edit]

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

There is some news coverage here, but I'm unsure whether it rises above the level of WP:NOT the NEWS. Given the quality of the coverage, including a quotation from a "friend" that the gentleman might have been a member of the SS, I'm very skeptical. As a recently deceased person, BLP may also need discussing. Delete for these reasons. Xoloz 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He was a neighbourhood icon, albeit only in Wolverhampton. The fellow was not rehoused by the council - they provided him with tents instead of placing him on the housing list. Various beneefactors donated him cooking equipment over the years - he was more of a hermit than a tramp. WP:BLP is indeed an issue, but the allegation is well-sourced. Furthermore, he meets the criteria for inclusion - in this case, Widespread coverage over time in the media such as the BBC, The Times or other reliable sources.". In this case, 2003, The Guardian, 2003, The Birmingham Post, 2003, The Daily Record (Scotland),, an obituary by the regional BBC, a 2007 Daily Mail story (not involving his death), a City council Press release about his death, The Express & Star artuicle about his death, an Indian news article about him], a Coventry news article about him, a (brief) mention in a Times onli9ne article. He was a local figure who became a 'landmark' in the city, regarded by the local Hindu community as a sandhu, and spawning a small internet following of a few thousand people. I think perhaps this quote sums it up - "A memorial could also be created in Wolverhampton to honour Josef Stawinoga’s status in the city, council leader Roger Lawrence has said.".
  • Keep -Mr. Stawinoga would qualify as a local celebrity, to be sure. However, when I lived in another location in England in the mid 1980's, I (and many others) was aware of his existence (though I didn't know his name). With this in mind, he seems at least to have some 'national' presence in Britain (and perhaps other countries). Does this not give him sufficient merit to be represented on Wikipedia? There are many quasi local celebrities already represented on Wikipedia (including local tv personalities, notable car dealers and the like). I don't see Mr. Stawinoga as being any less notable than these.Posthocergopropterhoc 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems the guy may have been notable prior to his death, and not just for living next to a ring road for 40 years. It clearly needs some expansion though, or else it's a little doubtful. Bretonbanquet 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known figure and of national historical importance to the UK. Zerbey 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A short burst of news coverage as the only sources for this article does not make the subject notable. See WP:NOTE. Subdolous 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There will appear to be less sources if you search "Josef Stawinoga" because hardly anybody knew the man's full name, due to his reclusive nature. Besides this, the news coverage only relates to a tiny part of Stawinoga's life, namely its termination. Notability comes from the details of his life, not the circumstances of his death. He has been a well known local icon in Wolverhampton for several decades.Yeanold Viskersenn 16:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable person in UK. Needs expanding though - Chandlerjoeyross 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless someone adds it in the article itself, the assertion for notability is weak. Was he a neighborhood icon of sorts? Did he inspire the town of Wolverhampton to do something? -- Emana 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The article now asserts some notability of the subject and social impact. It is sourced enough to be verifiable. More editing is needed to change speculations into well cited quotes of people speculating. -- Emana 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a bit more, and I'm sure there will be more info on the news over the next few days. TharkunColl 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unusual amount of coverage during lifetime for an individual homeless person, including multiple stories at different times in various national papers. --Dhartung | Talk 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia sould be a depositary of all knowledge and information. Josef must have had something special about him to attract so much attention. I for one would like to know more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohodo (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. —FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Corvus cornix 21:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because he's allegedly a former soldier, although nobody has confirmed for which side.--Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So all articles about people who may or may not be soldiers get listed at List of military-related deletions? If I wrote an article about my father, who fails WP:BIO, would his article automatically be listed there if I just happened to mention in passing that he served in World War II? I was in the Air Force, if I write a vanity article about myself, would it get listed there, too? Corvus cornix 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not from Wolverhampton and I knew about this guy before he died. He is quite the cult figure! Yeanold Viskersenn 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable in UK as cult figure. Believe he had a large facebook group as well.--UpDown 08:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Qualifies as a valid stub as it has references to reliable sources.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and the article is full of speculation he "may have been a soldier" or SS man, holy man, or some such. Edison 14:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I live nowhere near Wolverhampton but I was aware of Josef prior to his death and the widespread national coverage of his demise must surely infer notability. • nancy • 15:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the item is charming, and should be kept. A remarkable story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not *that* well known in the UK, I never heard of him! Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. He has no long-term, historical notability, in my view. --Malcolmxl5 22:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wolverhampton City Council is considering a memorial in the man's honour. This in itself would be an assertion of long term historical notability. Yeanold Viskersenn 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I hadn't heard of him until today, but I think there's enough press coverage to show notability, not all of it from after his death. (I've just added some references.) EALacey 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe he's not noteworthy enough as a person (I don't know) but it sure is noetworthy that he was allowed to live this way. --Zommer 11:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. (Disclaimer: I am from Wolverhampton.) The article treads a fine line as to whether it's notable, but his position within the local Indian community was certainly unusual, and probably unusual enough to be notable. I remember this being reported on several years ago in (I think) the Telegraph Magazine. (I don't regard having a Facebook group as evidence of notability though.) --RFBailey 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to keep facebook group mentions to a minimum... The last thing we want is hundreds of enthusiastic helpful teenagers telling their stories via the article ;-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Anyone who manages to squat on a central reservation for 30 years is notable, particularly in the UK where you can't even drop a bus ticket or smoke in a pub without getting an instant fine. Josef Stawinoga even got an obit in the Guardian [24]. The 'Wolverhampton ring-road tramp' was a myth during my childhood, it was only after it made the internet that I found out that he actually existed. There will be lots of people doing Google searches to find out more about him so I suggest we keep the page. Aynuk N. Ayli 09:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that's not an obituary, it's a news story. --RFBailey 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:He still made the national press and Aynuk N. Ayli's other points are still valid. Unknown Unknowns 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't disputing the other points. But there is an important distinction between the death being reported and getting an obituary: the latter would suggest much greater notability. --RFBailey 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Stawinoga is at least as notable as any of the other people in the Homeless people category. Unknown Unknowns
  • Keep Lots of people have heard of this person. People are far too keen to delete things from wikipedia these days. Gadgetgeez —Preceding comment was added at 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ship Classes of the Star Fleet Universe[edit]

Ship Classes of the Star Fleet Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list of fictional spacecraft is mainly plot summary without any primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of this board game.--Gavin Collins 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comprehensive, well-written, useful. Not appropriate for Wikipedia, though. Maybe with more sourcing and some real-world information. Powers T 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unable to find any reliable verifiable source on subject. Fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Subdolous 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this is not notable, fails WP:V and WP:NOT. Cannot be cited from secondary sources Pilotbob 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Failing WP:NOT, perhaps. No secondary sources? Perhaps that's true (at least those that satisfy WP guidelines). But WP:V? As Powers says, there's loads of primary sources about the Star Fleet Universe and all things in it. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-evident Original Research, unsupported by any canon source. -- Simon Cursitor 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it original research? Powers T 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone should make it part of their web site, but not here--at least, not like this (too much WP:SYNTH). JJL 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What position is being advanced by the synthesis of sources? Powers T 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It seems to me that the comparsisons between ships, and the motivations given for building new ships, are a speculative synthesis of factual naval history and fictive Star Trek history to fill in the gaps. (E.g., where are in-universe or secondary source cites for: "Light cruisers were meant to be less expensive versions", "these ships operated more in role analogous to 20th century Coast Guard vessels", "the costs of keeping a strong force of heavy cruisers on the lines replacing losses was more than any nation could afford" (nations?), "Another workhorse design, destroyers often approached the heavy cruisers in versatility".) Without citations, it reads like someone who kniows naval history filling in what he or she feels most logically must have occurred. JJL 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Acutally, almost all of the comments were taken directly from the source materials (SFB ship descriptions and background materials published by Task Force Games). But, as I was sure that this was doomed from the moment the AfD was initiated, I hadn't commented. As it is, when I created this article, I thought I was doing some good helping out those who had read other articles on the SFU and would like some more information. As it is, it looks like I overstepped my bounds and have been slapped down quite throroughly for my efforts in this article and a dozen others that I poured a lot of effort into which now don't exist. Forgive me for not realizing how strict the notability were, especially alongside some of the otehr cruft that has a more rabid following.--Donovan Ravenhull 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment References/citations would have helped (WP:V), though WP:N would still be an issue. Not everything that is good and useful is appropriate here. Can any of this be merged to another Star Trek article? You might at least bury it at a Talk page on some Star Trek page for future reference and merging with some other article. JJL 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that's basically what it is. But the "someone" is the original authors of the published material, not the editor who added this article to Wikipedia. =) Powers T 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources/references. -- Dougie WII 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There are few arguments for outright keeping of the article, and given the suggested merge destination has been deleted (Companions of the Hall), I can only take the arguments to merge as arguments to delete. It should also be noted the article lacks any reliable sources, an argument raised in this discussion which has not been addressed. I am happy to userfy this if requested - as Companions of the Hall was prod-deleted, it can be resurrected fairly easily, and a merge could be done. Neil ☎ 09:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Wulfgar was the intended main character of perhaps the most famous Forgotten Realms trilogy, the one that was responsible for the introduction of the most famous Forgotten Realms character. Among the top tier of notable Forgotten Realms characters (only Drizzt and Elminster are clearly more notable). I'll work on finding sources if that's a concern. Powers T 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That is the concern; just appearing in a novel isn't notable. Reliable and substantial secondary sources are required; see WP:FICT. -- Mikeblas 15:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's important to distinguish between sourcing concerns and notability concerns. You seem to be conflating the two, and I'm still not sure which one is primary. Powers T 16:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Companions of the Hall, which is currently quite stubby and would do well as a place to put good descriptions of each of the characters (other than Drizzt, who should keep having a separate article as a more important character that appears in more books/games/etc.). Pinball22 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19:50, 5 November 2007 The-G-Unit-Boss (Talk | contribs) deleted "Companions of the Hall" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable group of fictional characters.)


  • Merge and Redirect per above. JJL 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Merge as above. BOZ 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: As a significant character of the Forgotten Realms novels, Wulfgar appeared as a major character in the three novels of The Icewind Dale Trilogy, The Crystal Shard, Streams of Silver, and The Halfling's Gem, by R. A. Salvatore. He also made an appearance in The Legacy, the first book of Salvatore's Legacy of the Drow series. BOZ 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and/or Merge — Notable character within the context of a notable game setting. — RJH (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Delete, as utter fictive, and arguably abusive of the Wiki-project. The same comment applies to a number of the following nominations -- Simon Cursitor 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How can this be abusive of the Wikiproject? I can see saying the subject isn't notable by our standards, since this article is lacking secondary sources, but I don't see how you can say having an article about a character that appears in multiple popular novels is so unreasonable that it's abusive. Pinball22 14:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plus, simply being fictive (utterly or otherwise) is not grounds for deletion. Powers T 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prune and Merge. This article is full of non-notable fiction and lack of citations. I don't think there is going to be enough real-world information or references to get beyond a start-class article, so best to prune out the non-encyclopedic content and merge the rest.BreathingMeat 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. Non-notable fictional character. Google did not turn up reliable secondary sources indicating substantial independent coverage. Doctorfluffy 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major character in Forgotten Realms and one of the iconic ones too. --Polaron | Talk 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 23:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis fictional character from a role playing game does not have reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the game campaign setting he was designed for[25]. Basically he is the gaming equivalent of cardboard cut-out character: he has no dialog or particular role in the game but was created to pad out a book of gaming instructions. --Gavin Collins 23:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If that one link is the only source of information Gavin has used to learn about Wulfgar, that would explain why he seems to know so little about the subject. First of all, Wulfgar was created for a series of novels, in which he appears far more often and notably than he does in any of the RPG materials. And where did you get the information on the reason he was created for ("to pad out a book of gaming instructions"? How do you know this?)? How do you know that he has no dialog? What do you know of his role in the game/novels? Where are *your* reliable sources for these claims, or are you making guesses based on sparse research? I would suggest this editor only make verifiable claims if he wishes to be taken seriously in these deletion efforts. Know thine enemy, after all. BOZ 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at least the source I have cited more specific than the one in the article. If the character first appears in the Forgotten Realms game setting, then this fictional character was derived from a book of game instructions. There are no secondary sources for the game setting or any of the novels, which suggest to me they are not notable either. Padding is a fair comment. --Gavin Collins 00:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That doesn't change the fact that you are making claims you cannot support with evidence, to make your argument seem stronger than it really is. BOZ 04:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you yourself found specifically says "This brawny barbarian first appeared in The Crystal Shard, the first Forgotten Realms novel written by R.A. Salvatore...." That means we're talking about a character from fiction, not an RPG character. And if you're implying that the Forgotten Realms itself is not notable, you haven't looked very hard. Powers T 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As noted by others, this is a notable character from a series of books which has had profound impact on one of the most widely recognized fantasy campaign settings of the last 30 years. Much of the article is in need of help, and I'd love to see the creative energy that people have put into this AfD brought to improving the article. There are hundreds of reviews of the Icewind Dale series and I'm sure many of them discuss this character. Have at it! -Harmil 06:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment A mention in a review is just not notable. Compare and contrast with the Wulfgar from the old English poem, for whom there is lots of secondary material[26]. I would say from an article perspective, it would be better to write an article about Wulfgar from the perspective of his role in Beowulf, and then mention the fact that the Forgotten Realms character is derived from him. --Gavin Collins 08:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. The information seems at least somewhat relevant in some contexts but I do not think it is notable or verifiable enough for its own article. SorryGuy 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Severely reduce content (not based on third party sources) and merge to Icewind Dale. This character is not sufficiently notable for its own article. The authors of the article need to read WP:WAF. --SmokeyJoe 08:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete and then I'll put a redirect up. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Thann[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. {{unreferenced}} and {{prod}} removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to a new article on the Songs and Swords series -- currently some of the characters have articles, but the series itself doesn't, which seems backwards. Pinball22 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article does not cite any primary or secondary sources. The extensive plot summary is not justified, as there is no evidence of notability outside the game setting from which this fictional character is derived. --Gavin Collins 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gavin Collins. Edison 14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. No indication of coverage from secondary sources. Google returns only fansites and the like. Doctorfluffy 20:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is not relevant, and if you read it makes attacks towards 'who' the article is about (which is unnecessary). businessman332211 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 00:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, had a significant role in the novels Elfshadow and Elfsong, by Elaine Cunningham. BOZ 16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gavin Collins and Doctorfluffy's arguments. --Stormie 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Unsourced material that doesn't merit merging, and proposed destination page has been deleted itself. CitiCat ♫ 03:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regis (Forgotten Realms)[edit]

Regis (Forgotten Realms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Araevin Teshurr[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} and {{unreferenced}} removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. henrik•talk 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonbait[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} removed without explanation, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, very crufty Pilotbob 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral seems to be a character in multiple books, may or may not be notable. Suggest finding someone who reads these things (maybe the RPG wikiproject?) to get a grasp on notability or lack of it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect. Either to the current Azure Bonds article, or to a new article on the Finder's Stone Trilogy. Pinball22 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article has no primary or reliable secondary sources, just in universe character summary. This fictional character hasn't any notability outside the game setting; hence the only ghits come from fansites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 19:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 19:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: Major Forgotten Realms character, had a significant role in the novels Azure Bonds and Song of the Saurials, and Masquerades, all by Jeff Grubb and Kate Novak. BOZ 17:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Capistrano[edit]

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

notability concerns. The most notable thing about this person seems to be being 'one of the leagues most productive players to date' in Little League Baseball in the city of Santa Fe Springs, attributed to scouting records of the Texas Rangers. It is clear that this page needs some cleanup and wikifying, but those are seperate issues, not important for this AfD Martijn Hoekstra 11:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete baseball player who only ever played in two minor-league games. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet notability requirement for athletes. Edward321 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. Baseball Cube has no record of this guy ever playing for the Bakersfield Blaze as the article claims. No sources, article's creator has no other listed edits. I doubt the Rangers scout Little League teams in Santa Fe. Spanneraol 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I checked the assertion that he was chosen 23rd in the first round of the 88 draft... [27]... not true. Definite hoax. Spanneraol 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy Murders[edit]

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

A few claims to notability, but all seem pretty minor and even collectively I don't think they add up to passing WP:BIO. ~Matticus TC 08:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primary claim to fame is appearing in "small parts" (as an actress? a dancer?) in some music videos, of the two named bands one is redlinked and the other only minorly notable. We can't have an article on everyone who appeared in every music video ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andrew Lenahan, non notable. -RiverHockey 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, her links lead to other pages which should (imo) be AfD. Tiptopper 00:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge and redirect. henrik•talk 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media convergence[edit]

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

Little content outside of definition, subject to abuse under WP:ADVERT Michaelbusch 05:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are now merged, the rest is not worth keeping, so a plain redirect is enough now.--victor falk 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support redirection. Michaelbusch 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can be interpreted as nomination withdrawn and call for close & redirect?--victor falk 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Michaelbusch 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain this article since it refers to an important evolution in journalism, not simply technology. Add: Convergence creates new opportunities for journalists to gather and disseminate information beyond the traditional media-specific methods used by print-radio-television; media convergence also creates new opportunities for citizen journalists and citizens to disseminate information through credible media channels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediajohnw (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I've redirected the page to Technological convergence and am declaring this AfD closed. Michaelbusch 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge with Video 125. I'll do the initial merge, but any editor is free (even encouraged) to help out.--Kubigula (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1066 DC[edit]

1066 DC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable, not sure if it fails any particular criteria. Previously proposed for deletion as unencyclopedic, but tag was removed. Snigbrook 02:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge It's probably of interest to some train enthusiasts, but there really isn't anything of note to justify its own page. I suggest it's merged with the Video 125 and rewritten in the process to sound less like an ad.Alberon 14:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Alberon. Not even any assertion of notability for this particular video (fails WP:MOVIE). DMacks 15:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy McGristle[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. {{prod}} (and {{unreferenced}}) tags removed by User:71.108.52.19 without comment, so moving to AfD. Mikeblas 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - No sources provided to indicate real-world notability. Mr.Z-man 04:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alustriel Silverhand[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Prod removed by User:204.208.179.5 without comment, so listing at AfD. Mikeblas 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Among the most notable Realms characters, on a level with Wulfgar, Bruenor, and The Blackstaff. Powers T 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this fictional character may be notable within the game setting from which he is derived (and hence the ghits from fansites), but there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability in the real-world. --Gavin Collins 15:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even read the article, or is "he" just a typo? Powers T 15:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, yes that's rather indicative of the care and attention that goes into a lot of these fiction afds. Artw 18:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Pilotbob 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character within the Forgotten Realms series and novels. BOZ 19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Notable character within the context of a notable game setting. — RJH (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but this is Wikipedia, not ForgottenWiki (or WikiForRealia - sorry...) - so what exactly makes this character notable outside the context of that game? --Action Jackson IV 00:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of its major personages, information about Alustriel is vital to fully understanding the Forgotten Realms. Powers T 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Perhpas so. But why is the character notable outside of Forgotten Realms? Consider Tom Sawyer, a notable fictional character -- much has been written independently of Mark Twain's writing about the character and the universal meaning of his challenges and encounters. Is there such material about Silverhand, or any of the other Forgotten Realms characters? -- Mikeblas 02:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're getting at; my angle is that articles about particularly notable personages in a fictional setting could be viewed as necessary extensions of the setting's article. While Wikipedia is not paper, we do have limits on article size for aesthetic (and minor technical) reasons. Splitting out the information on those notable personages could thus be seen as appropriate even if the characters would not merit inclusion on their own. Powers T 12:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Montolio Debrouchee[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Prod was removed by User:Shorturban without comment, so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was DeleteJForget 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Gilbertsen[edit]

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

Blurb on a WWE Diva Search contestant that came second. Has some WP:BLP issues and notability is not clear. PROD was removed, so here we are. I think it should be deleted instead of merged because of the unsourced privacy invading details. GRBerry 13:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Several commentators have opined that this article is now a mess but has potential to be encyclopedic, but significantly, there was only one support for "keep". Even taking into account the two neutrals, there seems to be consensus to delete. One commentator suggested that the songs could be integrated into the articles about the politicians. So they could, subject to due weight. But as we're talking only about names of songs, and not any material that would come under the GFDL, this doesn't require that the article be kept. Anyone who wants a copy of this list can ask for David Gerard or some other admin to send a copy in email. --Tony Sidaway 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about politicians[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of songs about politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List is pure orignal research. On quick look almost every song I know is no about any president at all let alone the one its listed under. For example read the lyrics to the song "It's A Hit" [1]. Yes it mentions someone running for office and deploying troops. But it really makes no mention of anyone in office or any office in particular. Another example Yes the song "Ohio" mentions Nixon, but it's about the Kent State shootings not Nixon. List seems doomed to unsourced orignal research. Seems like any song written on a political topic will automatically be about the person in office at the time. Ridernyc 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This could be made encyclopedic but it'd be a lot shorter than it is now. Powers T 15:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral This is definetely a potential very encyclopedic article, with songs like fr:Ah ! ça ira. But now it's only listcruft.--victor falk 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no objective criteria for what constitutes being "about" a politician. Does it need to be about a specific politician or is any mention of the word "politician" or similar in the lyrics enough? Is a single reference or mention sufficient? A single verse? The arguments put forth in the first AFD were tragic. "Interesting," "not that bad" and the like are not good arguments in favor of keeping. Otto4711 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Integrate it into other articles I think it's an interesting list. It doesn't deserve being an article though. That goes against the rules of wikipedia. However the lists of songs could be integrated into the articles about the politcians they are about. I think that would be a resonable solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.237.12 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wow, the previous AfD was a snowball of keep votes. However, none of these songs were actually notable. Ohio does mention Nixon by name. End of the Innocence does refer to the "tired old man we elected king", a good description of Reagan. But it's a stretch to describe Bad Moon Rising as a wry comment about GOP politics. Harry Truman was actually the B-side of a Chicago hit single (Wishin' You Were Here maybe?). As for the rest of these, I doubt that Al Stewart ever performed Warren Harding in concert. Mandsford 23:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Articles titled "List of songs..." should be deleted ipso facto. Jack(Lumber) 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Otto4711. Criteria aren't quite rigid enough to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia (beyond Otto's "about" question, I'd like to add that most people who went through public high school can be considered politicians :)). The only way I can fathom this list passing WP:V would be if it were limited solely to songs where the composer flat-out states that they are about a politician (and hence the article becomes rather pointless). Unless List of Songs Suspected by Somebody, Somewhere, at Some Point in Time, to be Written About a Political Figure sounds like a good idea for an article (it sure doesn't to me). And how dare this article exclude You're So Vain? :D --Action Jackson IV 01:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; WP:NOT#IINFO, and trivia. Masaruemoto 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Doctorfluffy 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this is being voted for deletion on the basis that about a dozen of the several hundred items listed do not really qualify. That is not enough of reason to do any more than edit them out of the article. It would probably be reasonable to expect that t he key line be added to justify the inclusion of the items, but that some of the content is wrong is not evidence that the article is impossible--even erven a few are aboutthe subjects stated, it would be justified to have those few. 02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer II[edit]

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

The article seems to be about a guys boat. It has no real importance and does not contain any useful information. I think it unlikly it will be of use to anyone.

I nominate this for deletion

CaptinJohn 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No! This is the Craig J Venter Yacht used for Global Ocean Sampling Expedition to sample and sequence the DNA genomes/proteomes of the World's Oceans and has managed to increase the genetic stock available to scientists by over an order of magnitude. Non-notable my ass! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.165.65 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BixData[edit]

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

Not notable; see Talk:BixData for details. If this article is deleted, please also delete the Bixdata redirect. A. B. (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unless some reliable third-party sources are found. Powers T 12:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep--JForget 01:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Lööf[edit]

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

Notability. Marlith T/C 22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Is a well known children's book author and comic writer within Sweden. Is nominated for Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award 2007, has been the subject of a documentary in Sweden's state television network [28]. Apparently doesn't like journalists according to the previous page, which may explain a relative lack of interviews. henrik•talk 22:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep notable [29], several books. Next time please do some research before nominating. JJL 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There was no attempt to put an improvement sign or start discussion at the talkpage before starting AfD. The reason for this AfD is very thin. Neozoon 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should SNOW this discussion. Marlith T/C 04:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator, you can simply withdraw your nomination. Powers T 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swedish word of the day: Snöboll--victor falk 10:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have recommended deletion were it not for the sources listed here. The article itself has only one, as does the Swedish Wikipedia version; normally that'd bring notability into strong question. Powers T 12:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. If you are included in a twelve page pdf by the Swedish Institute on Children's Culturesee p. 9, then you undoubtedly have some notability. Winning the national Adamson Award in 1969 is another good indicator. Fram 13:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strööng keep very notable artist and author. Frankly a one-word nominaton seems bad form, if not necessarily bad faith. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Nick mallory 13:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable author. -- Dougie WII 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, as redirects are cheap. east.718 at 15:53, 11/5/2007

John Charles Martin Nash[edit]

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

This person has no notability outside of a famous father. Furthermore, his article has existed in an incoherent stub status for several years and a Google search yields no reference outside of his own Wikipedia article Lordjeff06 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7: no assertion of notability. Powers T 12:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7; A mention in the elder Nash's article is probably acceptable, and I see that there already is such a mention. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage in press and books. JJL 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no coverage of him as a mathematician; he seems to be unpublished with the exception of his dissertation. Normally I would consider an Erdos number of 2 to be a strong indicator of notability but this may be the outlier. There is no coverage of him other than brief biographical details in connection with his father, in whose article he is already mentioned. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, he has a publication as recent as 2002. But you're right that it's hard to find much by or about him. —David Eppstein 04:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having an Erdos number of 2 (or any other value other than 0) is not a strong indicator of notability in any way. --Ramsey2006 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have an article on Simon Pulsifer then we can have an article on J. C. M. Nash. Jack(Lumber) 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Powers. Redirect per the comment below. --Slartibartfast1992 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if the decision is that he fails WP:N then I hope it'll be redirected to the father or to A Beautiful Mind (book) rather than outright deleted. JJL 01:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. I don't know whether that comment was directed to me, but I'll reply anyway. A redirect sounds good to me. --Slartibartfast1992 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per comments above. The claim to an Erdős number of 2 is shaky (in theory, anyway, the thesis adviser does not collaborate on the thesis, and adding Doktorvater to the Erdős number relationships is fairly novel). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not all that uncommon for a mathematician to have joint publications with a thesis advisor, so unless there has been a slip up in compiling the list (which is always possible), I would assume that he is listed for quite standard and non-novel reasons. --Ramsey2006 11:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Armstrong[edit]

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

Delete. Minor, recurring character. Kogsquinge 02:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete all. We can certainly discuss whether being part of a (now) purely theoretical royal family should be notable, but merely asserting so without referring to applicable guidelines is a very weak argument. The notability guideline requires substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, which is not in evidence for these people. Sandstein 16:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: On the request of Mcferran (talk · contribs), I am reviewing the discussion again and amending the outcome to no consensus to delete with regard to Prince Pierre of Orléans only. See my talk page for the rationale. Sandstein 21:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Pierre of Orléans[edit]

Prince Pierre of Orléans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable four year old here, should be deleted or merged as with many minor royals. See also recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for an example of someone over a decade older, who has arguably done more, but is not notable just because she is a princess. Charles 16:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reasons:
Prince Constantin of Orléans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Philippe, duc de Valois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Moritz of Hesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (not even a year old and not notable)
Princess Paulina of Hesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (not even a year old and not notable)
  • Delete As nominator. Charles 19:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless France restores the monarchy, he isn't even a royal now. And in case France does bring back the monarchy, he's the first son of the third son of the man who would be King Henry. Just in case you care. When this kid plays "let's pretend" in kindergarten, he can't even be a decent pretender to the throne. Mandsford 17:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    France being a republic doesn't change a royal into a non-royal. He can marry some royal princess and became a king in some other country. And such a marriage won't be morganatic. —V. Z. Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 21:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • He could, but he hasn't. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Charles 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't operate in the past either. Nice try. Charles 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His eldest uncle is mentally handicapped, and his second uncle is as-of-yet unmarried. There is a possibility that Pierre could eventually become the future comte de Paris. I would agree with deleting Constantin's article, and possibly Philippe's, but not Pierre's. Morhange 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but that was an incredibly weak argument and a stupid comment at that. Prince Andrew has extensive news coverage surrounding him, millions of people watched his wedding on TV and he is still in the public eye and has been for decades. Certainly not comparable and certainly an attempt to insult the intelligence of everyone else if you expect them to believe so. Charles 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is still the heir to the throne of France, and is absolutely a royal.Tim Foxworth 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)
  • Merge to the articles of the respective parents. The redirects can be re-expanded into separate articles if and when one of them does something noteworthy. Choess 13:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to his parents' article at most. Being a "royal" in a country with no monarchy isn't all that big of a deal, especially a toddler with no achievements to speak of. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most probably he is a future French king. To include him into the Wikipedia is only a question of time. —V. Z. Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia IS NOT A CRYSTAL BALL, people! We do not predict the future here. I'm a hardcore monarchist and even I think this is ridiculous! Charles 21:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a republican, but I acknowledge the lines of succession. In France there is the Salic law, that's why he won't be king only in case his uncle would have a son (highly improbable) or he himself dies. So his importance could be compared to Charles, Prince of Wales, most probably the future English & Scottish king. —V. Z. Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 21:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't simplify the Orléanist/Legitimist/Bonapartist situation. His importance is not comparable to Charles, the Prince of Wales. Charles 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fourth in succession to a monarchy which was kicked out of power in the mid-19th century does not create notability for a four year old. Let's wait until he does something worthy of note in his life. Edison 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - third in line to the Orleanist claimant to France, and, unless Jean marries and has sons, the future Orleanist claimant himself; this makes him notable in my book. I agree that there is no need at present for articles on Constantin, Philippe, and Paulina - but I hesitate about Moritz (which just goes to show how inappropriate it is to combine AfDs for different people, especially from different families). Noel S McFerran 18:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noel, Wikipedia does not predict the future. He could die tomorrow for all we know (God forbid though, as he is only a child). The rationale for combining AfDs is that these articles have no distinguishing features and have been argued, wrongly, to be notable on the same basis. If you feel it is inappropriate, then please vote individually, even if it means placing your vote under the other article name. The fact that they are agnates of different houses does not matter because they are each non-notable. Charles 18:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case (and only in that case) his article shall be deleted. But now he is 4th in the lines and that makes him very important. Certainly more that a lot of Star Wars cruft. —V. Z. Talk • Contributions • Edit counter 00:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not. Tell me where this child shows up other than in genealogies. Charles 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Charles asks, I will respond (knowing full well that he will have an answer). When Pierre was born, there was an article in Point de Vue, one of the most popular French weekly magazines. [30] When he was baptised there was a FOUR-PAGE spread; not many babies get that kind of coverage. While he may be only four-years old, Pierre is a rather special four-year old. Noel S McFerran 02:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if this helps, but here's a listing of the contents of that particular Point de Vue [31] where it mentions Pierre d'Orléans: baptême à Cannes Morhange 05:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that Charles thinks that each of these individuals is non-notable (he's told us so numerous times on this page). But other editors might not share his unanimity on this issue. Editors should be given the opportunity to vote on these individually. Noel S McFerran 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please do vote on them individually. Place your comments under the other nominations. Charles 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Not notable. I concur with the delete arguments expressed above, I afraid. --Malcolmxl5 22:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Prince Pierre of Orléans per Noel S McFerran and Prince Moritz of Hesse as he is second in line to the headship of the House of Hesse. Delete Constantin, Philippe and Paulina. - dwc lr 12:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and redirect to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Fang Aili talk 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qilué Veladorn[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Prod was deleted by 204.208.179.5 without comment (along with the {{unreferenced}} tag), so listing for AfD. Mikeblas 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable secondary sources as evidence of notability outside of the game settings. There are no primary sources given either, nor any real world perspective.--Gavin Collins 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms), ideally along with the other six (except maybe Alustriel). Powers T 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Powers. For what it's worth, the claim that "reliable secondary sources" are absent for an article of this nature is a bit wide of the mark: in fact, the description of these characters, in semi-encyclopedic styles, in game manuals whose authority is definitive precedes their use in narrative fiction. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The game manuals are primary sources. -- Mikeblas 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Seven Sisters (Forgotten Realms). Pinball22 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. --Polaron | Talk 16:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - cruft, no real world perspective, no secondary sources. Too bad there's not a D&D Wikipedia to transwiki these things into... I don't know how WOTC would feel about it, though, as these are copyrighted characters. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lots of wikis deal with copyrighted characters, including Muppet Wiki, Wookieepedia, and Memory Alpha. Granted, Wizards is not Disney/Henson, Lucasfilm, or CBS, but all three of them have been known to put up just as much of a fuss as Wizards has in the past. Powers T 15:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there is a D&D wiki, but it seems to cover just Open Gaming License content, including homebrew stuff. I also found a Forgotten Realms wiki. Powers T 15:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are fan wikis, while this is an encyclopedia wiki. Perhaps a D&D fan wiki can't hold any copyrighted content from the sourcebooks because that would discourage people from buying the manuals, I dunno. But in that case, maybe Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on a topic if its content only comes from the D&D manuals and source books (either directly or through synthesis). AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Carmans Pro Golfer[edit]

Dave Carmans Pro Golfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Game doesnt seem to exist, only edits by User:Smirnoffka have been related to this article, the article does not cite any references or sources. Salavat 09:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There wasn't a "Dave Carman" admitted to the Tour either (not in any year since 2005). Same user also added game to list of xbox games.--SesameballTalk 09:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Borderline G11 (advertising) speedy, even if it wasn't a hoax. Powers T 12:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a single Google hit that isn't Wikipedia or a mirror thereof. Either hoax or something extremely obscure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Starblind. Doctorfluffy 07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Wolfe[edit]

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

Not notable. Not really much more than a resume. Prod declined in August with advice to try AfD. Malcolmxl5 09:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7 (no assertion of notability). Powers T 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, probably self-promotion. -RiverHockey 14:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete no notability asserted in article. Who is this guy, and why does he expect us to host his resume? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity. It might as well have been written in the first person. Jack(Lumber) 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per all of the above reasons. Tiptopper 00:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unknown artist, violates WP:BLP due to lack of real cites. Bearian'sBooties 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:25, 11/5/2007

Street of Alice (Demo Tape)[edit]

Street of Alice (Demo Tape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These are all demo tapes of a Japanese band which existed for four years and released two albums. These demo tapes have no claims to notability and fail WP:MUSIC. (when Googling for "Street of Alice" "Velvet Eden", please note that the first album of the band has the same title, so most hits are about the album, not the demo tape)

Also nominated:

Fram 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 14:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit detailed for demo tapes. Delete - list them in a discography, but don't need their own pages. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Demos/mixtapes/other unreleased material don't get their own pages unless they have their own multiple secondary sources. A1octopus 18:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and A1octopus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--JForget 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wangleball[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:MADEUP. Neither google nor yahoo return any matches to this sport. ARendedWinter 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a recreational game that is growing legs... What started as a game made up with 2 people is now played by a number of people. The reason for creating this wiki is so that it provides a quick and simple explanation for newcomers to the game. Please do not delete this. Piequat 09:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devas (Digimon)[edit]

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

Anime fancruft at its worst. This article does not cite primary sources, reliable secondary sources or provide any evidence of notability, but worst of all, is comprised of vapid character summary. Gavin Collins 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Without primary or seconary sources, these ficitonal characters have no claim to notability per se, so how could you justify a move to another article? Perhaps this would be best if moved to somewhere like fancruft.net.--Gavin Collins 09:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:FICT out-of-universe notability does not limit the content of an article, just whether the article itself can exist. So if Digimon is notable, that's sufficient. —Quasirandom 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see nothing in WP:NOTE or WP:FICT that would suggest that a merge proposal isn't the proper initial action rather than firing off AfDs. I also agree with the above comment by Quasirandom. --SesameballTalk 18:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Not notable enough to stand on its own, move it to the list. --Mad Tinman 16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah go ahead and delete it, it was starting to annoy me anyway. Just add the Deva's info in the Ultimate Digimon section, that will work. Johnny542 15:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or delete I'm exporting the full article history now for Wikia:Digimon, just incase there's anything of value. If anyone is interested in helping out, WP:DIGI is already planning on moving some of the lists articles over, and other articles, such as this, will need to be evaluated too. -- Ned Scott 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Digimon sucks, Pokemon rocks. Jack(Lumber) 01:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. Secondary sources to indicate notability do not exist. Doctorfluffy 20:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom AndalusianNaugahyde 20:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.   jj137 (Talk) 22:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moberly Lake Elementary School[edit]

Moberly Lake Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable elementary school Chris 07:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the existing stubby text into the stubby article at Moberly Lake, British Columbia Chris 07:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn school. Eusebeus 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G-Unit the Movement[edit]

G-Unit the Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Dipset the Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no such thing as a "G-Unit movement". There's the G-Unit group and record label but nothing to suggest a movement. The author uses G-Unit artists MySpaces as references and calls it a "movement", which is original research. Spellcast 07:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • strong delete per nom, on top of that, it's horribly written. Chris 07:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete 'nuff said. ORfancruftbiaspoorlywrittennonsense. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm delete - pure rubbish. --Dan 12:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially because of all the MySpace links. Escaper27 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -RiverHockey 14:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article gets deleted, shouldn't Dipset the Movement get deleted as well?--Shadyaftrmathgunit 15:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should. I've added it to this nomination. I'm pretty sure this isn't going to change the minds of any of the participants above. It just duplicates the record label article.
Dipset the Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spellcast 15:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added Dipset the Movement to the nomiation.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:24, 11/5/2007

Julia Olteanu[edit]

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

Contested speedy. One murder out of many. There's nothing special about it, yes there are six articles listed but none of them say anything more important than what is written in the English one (which is a Swedish newspaper too, just in English). You don't achieve encyclopedic relevance by getting murdered. Deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia. SaberExcalibur! 07:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep servant only reason for nomination is that I did the article. I dont know if it is bad faith or not but i have a feeling it is,and i dont really feel interested in any discussion with the user either.--Zingostar 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "You don't achieve encyclopedic relevance by getting murdered." Oh so you mean Laci Peterson,Shanda Sharer etc etc...didnt achieve that? ,your arguement is not correct servant and another arguement to vote against your nomination.--Zingostar 17:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP says that, in general, people are not notable just because one event in which they were involved was reported in the news. Many, many people, unfortunately, have been murdered; we do not need articles about all of them, however, but only about those whose lives and deaths have some broader significance. It is not reasonable to compare Olteanu with Laci Peterson, whose death resulted in a widely controversial new US law, or as Shanda Sharer, whose death became the subject of two books, one of which was a New York Times bestseller. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FisherQueen. One Night In Hackney303 21:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (twice, by SQL and Sandahl). Non-admin closure. Deor 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen gentile[edit]

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

Article is vandalism and possibly libellous. Mastercampbell 06:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There does not seem to be substantial support for deletion of this article, despite some feelings that it would be more appropriate to Commons. Thanks to Amandajm for the offer to improve the article. --Tony Sidaway 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling[edit]

Gallery of Sistine Chapel ceiling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a collection of images, photographs, or media files. I recommend that this be transwikied to an image gallery page on Commons. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As it is, the article is no good. But it seems like the images could be taken and discussed individually, which could flesh it out into a decent article. It's not my field, so I wouldn't attempt such an undertaking, but it seems that that would be a preferable alternative to deletion. faithless (speak) 06:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - to Commons. Other's work doesn't have to just be deleted. --Emesee 06:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page and transwiki anything not already on Commons. The main article, Sistine Chapel ceiling, already covers this topic rather well. ObfuscatePenguin 06:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After perusing Sistine Chapel ceiling, I've changed my mind. Subject is already covered quite thoroughly. faithless (speak) 08:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it might need some work, but in my opinion this might well be converted to a decent article on the Art of the Sistine Chapel ceiling, where the different sections are shown, discussed and explained. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sistine Chapel ceiling already discusses the art, although it could easily be expanded some. (It doesn't discuss the plaster all that much.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or transwiki many notable artists have galleries on wikipedia, Sistine Chapel is one of the most famous displays of art in the world. Definitely do not delete the images, rather incorporate them into Sistine Chapel ceiling, transfer to Wikimedia Commons if necessary. -RiverHockey 14:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No proposal to delete the images has been made. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Commons and place appropriate link in Sistine Chapel ceiling article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason why I created this gallery is that the collection at Commons was a bit of a jumble. Since I created this article, the Commons collection of Sistine Chapel material has been divided up into a number of small sections. I'm not in favour of this, and want a concise collection, clearly labelled, with some discussion at one or other location, with a direct from the main page.
I have just added more information to the page, and could add still more, and also some of the missing images. This page does not discuss the 1.history 2.process 3.theology. This leaves room to make comments about each individual picture, which would combine well with the general article that looks at the scheme in general and cites particualr works as exemplary.
The other option is to have a separate page for each work, which seems a bit extreme. However, because this was a five year project, we are essentially looking at a collection of artworks, that combine to a single enormous artwork. If Michelangelo had only painted the "Creation of Adam" his fame would have been made.
To sum up, I think it is better to present the individual works together in this gallery and discuss each of them briefly, so that the entire scheme is apparent, but the individual quality of the various works is recognised. This mmethod makes possiblle written comparison between the works which is noot the aim of the wikiCommons page which serves as a repository.
Comment wikipedia recognises Lists as a valuable method of displaying informmation. Galleries like this, as distinct from Commmons because they contain more encyclopedic information, are also very vaulable, particularly to the art student.
Further Comment, In order not to lose the pics I have put together, I have dumped those not already shown within the text into the major article. But it is quite a long article and I would rather not leave them there, but have this gallery functional.
Amandajm 08:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And still further Comment I'm prepared to do the work on this page to make it more encyclopedic, for the reasons I have given above. However, I am not prepared to put in hours of work on a page earmarked for deletion, so you had better make a decision one way or the other as to whether you want a collection of pics with descriptive and comparative information, or not. and if this means a change to wiki policy in order to better serve the needs of Art History writers and students, then so be it. There is no better way to serve a pictorial subject, than pictorially. Amandajm 09:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cross-Harbor Highway Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

None of the issues brough up in the first AFD, over a year ago, have been corrected. This is still an unreferenced proposal with no serious consideration. Don't let the references fool you; almost all of them are either proposals by other "non-notable" people, references about the Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel, or references to other projects for the author's cost analysis. Basically, the only thing that is not original research is that a truck tunnel was briefly studied during planning for the rail tunnel, but was determined to be infeasible. --NE2 06:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per well-reasoned nomination. If a proposal for a construction project was never was anywhere near being accepted, let alone built, it is of very little interest in the long run. If it is (or was) a serious alternative among many, then it might receive some mention in the article about the project which was eventually built, but a separate article is too much. Merely having an idea aired, considered, then rejected, is flimsy grounds for an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is basically fan fic for transportation geeks. Though the idea of a tunnel from New Jersey to Brooklyn is WP:INTERESTING, it doesn't merit an article of its own until such a project is under serious consideration. szyslak 09:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NE2. —Scott5114↗ 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTE. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nom is correct that the provided references do not appear to meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. -- Satori Son 16:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matraville Public School[edit]

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

Article asserts no notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Twenty Years 05:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Twenty Years 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed, not notable. Subdolous 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Camaron1 | Chris 18:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although worth a mention in our article on Matraville, New South Wales. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence Keep but merge into Matraville, New South Wales as if that grows it will be recreated anyway for comprehensiveness. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Calisber. Also need some mention on the Hillsdale suburb page, where it can be argued the school is located. My first attempt at creating articles for wikipedia. Sad to see it go, but not really notable enough at present. Recurring dreams 21:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, which generally translates as redirectGarrie 02:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the moment. GizzaDiscuss © 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hillsdale, New South Wales until a more thorough assertion of notability can be made. Auroranorth (sign) 10:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:ORG in that the school's "longevity" justifies it inclusion. Assize 03:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the United Nations schools are not an organisation. That aside, keeping a school because its been around since 1903 is ludacris. If this were to be the reason to keep the article, then wikipedia would be flooded with non-notable primary schools that have existed for a while. I would like to point your attention to South Perth Primary School, it was speedy deleted (without AfD) for being NN, its existed since 1898, making it 5 years older than this one. I think this argument is ludacris. It fails to provide any serious reliable sources, which will back up any claim that the article makes. Twenty Years 16:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to Connells Point, New South Wales#Schools. This doesn't prejudice the possibility of splitting it into a full article again should more verifiable information become available in the future. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Connells Point Public School[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N and WP:ORG. It asserts no notability. The only thing i found on the school was an article by the Herald 1, which only give the school a passing mention. Twenty Years 05:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tremayne (Star Wars)[edit]

Tremayne (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable character. Cited sources only offer up plot summary/background; no real-world notability or sources to pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've only taken a cursory look at the page, but I would not argue for deletion. The character may not be deserving of an article (probably isn't), but I imagine that there is a List of minor Star Wars characters article which he would fit into nicely. faithless (speak) 05:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Bailey (actress)[edit]

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

I believe this article, which is unreferenced and has very little context, is a complete put-on. If there is an actress named Kelly Bailey, she's not notable. And as far as I can determine there is no current "hit show" (TV? Radio? Internet?) titled My Life. ShelfSkewed Talk 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Non-notable/unverifiable, most likely a hoax created by someone called Kelly Bailey who lives in Hull. And she got away with it for two and a half years. When this is deleted Kelly Bailey (composer) should be moved to Kelly Bailey. Masaruemoto 05:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Masaruemoto said, this appears to be a hoax. I'm not able to confirm the existence of the actress or her show. faithless (speak) 05:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Almost certainly a vanity page, and, at best, non-notable: where cities in the UK do have local TV, they have tiny audiences. ObfuscatePenguin 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Street (San Andreas)[edit]

Grove Street (San Andreas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This fictional street is not notable outside of GTA. Pilotbob 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only San Andreas is notable enough to have an article, not elements of the game. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many references can be found on Google, but none offer more than a passing mention. No real-world notability. faithless (speak) 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Love the game. Don't see any reason for the street to be mentioned anywhere outside articles for the game or the characters. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 09:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not discussed significantly in secondary sources as per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 19:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 15:50, 11/5/2007

Astrokaszy[edit]

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

The subject lacks real world notability. Pilotbob 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FICT. Article is about a subject with NO out-of-universe coverage in reliable sources, so it must go. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This might be acceptably merged into another article. --SesameballTalk 07:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure. I read it over three times and I still can't figure out what it's about. Jack(Lumber) 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 19:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantean Scion[edit]

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

This fictional concept lacks reliable sources and has no real world notability Pilotbob 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments have little merit. east.718 at 02:23, 11/5/2007

List of people with multiple marriages[edit]

List of people with multiple marriages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Are Yoko Ono and Muhammad Ali closely associated just because they have both been married four times? No. The intro states that these people are "notable for four or more marriages", but most of these people aren't notable for their multiple marriages (and the "notability" of their marriages can't be measured in an encyclopedic way). Arbritrary cut-off point as well. Create a Category:Multiple marriages or something, for the few genuinely notable ones, but this list is just celebrity trivia. Masaruemoto 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly an INTERESTING article that doesn't contribute anything to encyclopedic human knowledge. If the oft-repeated claim that "half of all marriages end in divorce" is true, then half of all people who've ever been married could theoretically be on a list like this, without the arbitrary inclusion criterion of four. szyslak 09:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quite an interesting read but I think the divorce rate, especially among celebrities, is just too common to be a maintainable list. Spellcast 11:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and no category either. Indiscriminate collection of loosely associated people. Otto4711 12:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- too vast a list to maintain Thunderwing 20:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though we can still be friends. Although it is interesting, I can't think of any reason to keep this, since it is pure triva, and Wikipedia's policy on that is unambiguous. Sadly, I can't even see what this could be merged to. There is a difference between what the "knowledge sought by the inquiring mind", and "what enquiring minds want to know". Celebrity marriages and divorces are only "notable" because of a press that tells us that it's chic to keep track of such things, and that's covered in the celebrity articles. Multiple marriages are a curiosity, but not notable. Mandsford 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have lists of top 10 and top 100 as arbitrary cutoff points, and the ranking of the richest people have a cutoff point too. The top person in the list is not a celebrity, and by including people with Wikipedia articles, it limits the list. We also categorize people by the year they were born and the colleges they attended, again that doesn't define them either, or connect two people. It was newsworth enough for that notorious tabloid, The New York Times in "75, He Takes a 26th Wife.", New York Times, January 30, 1984. “Glynn Scotty Wolfe, who is 75, married for the 26th time Saturday at a wedding chapel on the Las Vegas Strip. Wearing a black tuxedo and an ear-to-ear smile, Mr. Wolfe walked out of the chapel with his bride, 38-year-old Christine Camacho, the oldest of his brides." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is someone with four marriages much more notable than someone with three marriages? (Four is the list's cutoff point.) Yes, a lot of articles have "arbitrary" cutoff points, but your argument amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And yes, Glen Scotty Wolfe is just notable enough for a New York Times article, but there's already an article about him, so that doesn't make a list necessary. szyslak 01:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What crap did I refer to? The richest people? I don't think it is crap, and I don't think that you really think it is crap either. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS involves invoking a dodgey article, The richest people article has a long history on Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with the cut-off point raised to 6+ marriages -- 4 or 5 isn't quite special enough, but 6 would keep in Henry VIII whose six wives are arguably his main claim to fame (and, vice versa, who is the most public face of serial marriages). Admittedly, I may be coming at this from a bit of an I-Like-It angle, because I'm presently fascinated by all sorts of Bluebeard and Bluebeard-like stories; but I do think 6-29 marriages is something worth recording. Would more citations showing these people as notable because of their multiple marriages -- as we have for Glynn Scotty Wolfe and Wook Kundur -- be any help? --Zeborah 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to make the exact same suggestion as Zeborah, but with 5 being the 'here and up' marker. I'd also say limit it to people are notable enough to be on wikipedia, or who were married to a list of whom are at least half notable (linkable in Wikipedia, at least) to provide some limitations around a large list-subject. --Thespian 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing any less arbitrary about seeting the cutoff at 5 or 6 than there is in setting it at 4, and these two comments demonstarte with crystal clarity that there can never be a non-arbitrary inclusion criterion. Otto4711 12:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zeborah and Thespian. No opininon on the cut-off point, but I'd like to see marriages that have importance in themselves, like the Habsburg dynastical shennagigans, if the all the other parties are non-notable. This list discriminates historical persons in the favour of celebrities. --victor falk 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I usually apply WP:NOT#IINFO to the extreme, but this list has (IMO) some WP:INTERESTING information that is WP:USEFUL to thousands of housewifes who have nothing better to do than read the yellow press all day (not that there's anything wrong with that). This list seems pretty well maintained; just add some sources and maybe lose the "ranks" and increase the cut off point to 6. This is a case where WP:Ignore all rules may apply. – sgeureka t•c 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. A cat would be fine for this information. Doctorfluffy 17:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly sourced, possible WP:BLP violation, anyways thousands of people would likely qualify for this list, and having multiple marriages isn't a claim of notabilty for almost every single one. Perfect example of WP:LISTCRUFT This is a Secret account 02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and discussions. Clearly this would include name person articles that exist. So it in no way indicates any kind of a unique event. It is in fact a normal situation. Vegaswikian 04:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonian Indian Policy[edit]

Jacksonian Indian Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

In accordance with WP:NOT#OR. This article is in debate/discussion format, with the research declared as being original in the article lead. SesameballTalk 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as seemingly pure original research. Bfigura (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable OR, but it wouldn't surprise me if some of that were lifted directly from the books mentioned. Subject could perhaps be made into an article, but is already covered at Andrew Jackson#"Indian Removal" and Trail of Tears. faithless (speak) 05:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Barf! Someone's debate topic and their essay for the different viewpoints. That type of intelligence insulting crap was a feature of The People's Almanac too. Mandsford 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Series of questions and answers with no conclusions, which is not encyclopedic as any conclusions, even if drawn, would be OR. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. Sandstein 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Jean of Nassau[edit]

Prince Jean of Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Wholly non-notable in his own right and any notability is directly derived from his father, etc. Merge to his father's article, where the entire content of the article is located already. This is not a case of notability like Prince Henry of Wales, where he is wholly notable in his own right. Charles 03:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages, all siblings, for the exact same reasons:

Prince Paul Louis of Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Princess Charlotte of Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Léopold of Nassau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles (talk • contribs) 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral for now. I understand that notability is not inherited through relation, HOWEVER, is there any guideline for notability of Royalty? These are all in the line of succession for a Monarchal throne, and it isn't like they are far off. These children are all 5th-10th or so in the line? Does that confer enough nobility? I know that some Notability guidelines confer notability on otherwise non-notable subjects (such as the Fortune 500 exception to WP:CORP); is there any such exception for Royalty like this? I am uncertain as to how to feel about this one, while I agree with the premise that there is not likely much independant press on these children (due mostly to their young age) yet, there is most LIKELY to be in the future (but does that qualify as crystalballery)? I am on the fence yet. I'd like to see what others say. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The line of succession to the throne itself is notable and they are on that page, but individually there is nothing of note to warrant their own articles, especially since each article is essentially a carbon copy of the others. The information should be and can be presented on their father's page and on the succession page. Nothing more though. Charles 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (all) As members of the royal family of a European country who are in the line of succession for their country's throne, I daresay that all of them have received considerable coverage by independent sources, even if it was just the coverage of their births. Furthermore, I imagine that they have demonstrable wide name recognition. faithless (speak) 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read what I said about their father and the information being there, and also how all of the information is carbon-copied from one article to another. There is very little that is unique about each article and they are not notable enough to warrant separate articles. Charles 13:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I maintain my "Keep" argument. I'm not defending the quality of the article(s), but I do strongly believe that these children, young though they are, are notable. Notability is not transferred; however, I don't think that's really the case here. If these kids were the children of a president, they obviously wouldn't be notable. However, being the children of the king of a country automatically bestows a nobility upon these children, thereby (in my mind) making them notable. And as I've said before, there is undoubtedly a fair amount of references available, and I'm sure that most Luxembourg-ians know who these people are, giving them demonstrable wide name recognition. I certainly understand where you're coming from, we just disagree on this one. Cheers, faithless (speak) 23:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I regularly contribute to the royalty articles. The information presented in this article is merely a duplicate of what appears in the article for the subject's father. There's no reason to place it here as well. When, and if, there is additional information about the subject, then I think that there should be a separate article. Noel S McFerran 10:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Noel S McFerran. Subdolous 14:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability here. Being descended from someone famous does not make one a notable person. Let them do something notable before we create an article for them. NoSeptember 12:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all :: while current reigning roaylty may have some notability, as several of them will be figurehead heads of state, lesser royalty have only notbaility in that they parasitise on their people of their country, and prevent the eveoltuion of democratic governments. All articles on individual royals, self-titled aristocrats and other non-republicans should be removed, so that Wiki can properly represent the ideal of the United States of government of people, for people and by people. -- Jubelum 13:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:NPOV. Some royalty will be notable regardless of what others think. This is a matter of what royalty is notable, not if all of it should be removed. Reigning royalty, by the way, has more of an effect than non-reigning royalty. Charles 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per my nomination and Noel's reasoning. Charles 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This material can be contained in the article on their father until the children do something of note. john k 14:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and re-direct to The Ensworth School. Non-admin closure. Camaron1 | Chris 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ensworth High School[edit]

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

Contested PROD (said that high schools are "notable by default"), which is terribly inaccurate. Even schools (whether they be high, middle, elementary) need to assert some notability, which this one clearly does not in its current revision. Rjd0060 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some confusion, this shouldn't have been AfD'd. The article already exists under The Ensworth School. I think that article should be merged into Ensworth High School and The Ensworth School be deleted. This AfD should probably close. - Rjd0060 16:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be the other way around, though...The Ensworth School is the name of the school (which is K-12, not just a high school). Ensworth High School should be a redirect or deleted altogether. Smashville 17:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am thoroughly confused. Maybe since you seem to know and understand all of this, you should be bold and do it? - Rjd0060 19:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/mea culpa: Due to 1) lack of seeing the AfD notice at the top of the page (duh) and 2) not knowing about the original article The Ensworth School, I moved the Ensworth High School article to Ensworth School. Once I realized what I had done, I left a note on the main article page explaining what I did so that the AfD trail wouldn't be further screwed up. My apologies — my only excuse is that I'm doped up on cold medicine right now. Having said all that, here's my out-of-turn vote:
    • Delete and redirect to The Ensworth School, but only because of the existence of the main article. Yes, I know that there is no official established policy that high schools are "notable by default" (that was the phrase I used when I deleted the {{prod}}), it has become a de facto policy that high schools are notable. This one is no exception. High schools are normally notable because they garner news coverage through their sports teams. Until we finally come up with an official policy (and I wish we would), I see no reason to deviate from the current trend that finds all high schools to be notable by default. Just because this is a private all-grades school does not make this school deviate from the norm into non-notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability (technically that means it meets the Speedy Deletion criteria, but admins never want to do that for some reason). And before anyone brings that opinion piece of WP:OUTCOMES in, schools are NOT exempt from notability guidelines. TJ Spyke 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning outcomes. I hate that essay. - Rjd0060 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. During my absence from Wikipedia (early July-early September), people started using that when they voted Keep in school articles. It's just the opinion of some editors, but some people act like it's a policy or guideline and think that all schools deserve articles. TJ Spyke 04:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article pending deletion, while 3 other schools in the same area are not? halofandelta010

  • Comment When was the last time an article on an American high school actually got deleted? Zagalejo^^^ 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you are talking about OUTCOMES. Huh. I am not talking about any other articles, except the one I've nominated, and if you havent read the article, you should, and you will see that it does not assert any notability. - Rjd0060 04:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read OUTCOMES; I'm just curious. Most high schools do end up passing the regular notability guidelines anyway, once people have dug up multiple independent sources. Have you done any research into this place? Zagalejo^^^ 04:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most school article AFD's end up being redirected to the school district (if the school district has an article) or the city/town's article. I suppose it's meant as a compromise (the article no longer exists, but it's not deleted either). TJ Spyke 07:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true when we're talking about elementary schools, but have any high schools been deleted recently? (Like, within the past three months?) Zagalejo^^^ 07:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new school, so it won't have any famous alumni or anything, but it has already received a fair amount of attention in The Tennessean, a major paper. A sample of stuff I found on Newsbank:
  • Sarah B. Gilliam. "Ensworth High hosts Special Olympics camp". The Tennessean. 24 October 2007.
  • Randy Moomaw. "Rural, urban kids learn together at Ensworth High camp". The Tennessean. 11 July 2007.
  • Karen Jordan. "New year brings sophomores to Ensworth High". The Tennessean. 26 Augst 2005.
  • Stephanie Toone. "Student, faculty numbers are growing at Ensworth High". The Tennessean. 20 July 2005.
  • Pam Sherborne. "Parents, students get preview of Ensworth High buildings". The Tennessean. 28 November 2003. Zagalejo^^^ 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I found this on Google Scholar: [32] Plus this, which discusses the older Ensworth Middle School. Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a specific and burning dislike for arguements that support WP:OUTCOMES, as it is a lazy arguement to make, and schools should be held to the same standards as any other article, (it should be noted that while MOST high schools will pass WP:N without much trouble, there is some burden of the article to at least attempt to provide references that do so). However, all of that said, based on the references provided by Zagalejo, this one appears to pass. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I'm not particularly crazy about it, high schools invariably receive coverage from local news sources. Even if the school is only a few years old, there will have been articles in papers and bits on the evening news discussing its planning and construction. faithless (speak) 06:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question Is "coverage = notability"? It seems having a couple hundred hits on the Hated Google News Archive Test is enough to be notable for a school. Should it be so, no matter how trivial it is? "New year brings sophomores to Ensworth High". seems the very epitome of "dog bites man". I think that an article about Spam & Co Inc. would be WP:SNOWBALLed if its article was:

    "Spam & Co Inc manufacture spam.
    Reference:
    Newsflash: No Way To Earn Bacon After Spam & Co Layoff".

    This is the matter of concern here, double standards.--victor falk 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decisions on Wikipedia are made by consensus. What is WP:OUTCOMES if not a summary of consensus? Admittedly, we don't have a decree from the Foundation that high schools are inherently notable, but if that's the way that such deletion attempts turn out, it seems a decent consensus for me. And keep for the sake of the references, as well. Nyttend 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all high schools Let's face it: they are de facto kept by default. Only in the rare cases when no one bothers to contest the nomination do they get deleted. The only result of not accepting this is the clogging up of AfD and pointless debates over wether a mention in news article is sufficient by and of itself to establish notability. What I want to see is a policy or guideline stating that.--victor falk 13:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources presented, existence of subject is not verifiable. See WP:V, WP:NOR. Subdolous 14:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The existence of the subject is not in question. Smashville 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to The Ensworth School which would be the actual name of the school. In addition, rewrite the article for The Ensworth School - the school actually does have notable alumni, including Shooter Jennings and, I believe, Bill Frist (I know Frist was at least on the board prior to being elected to the Senate). Smashville 15:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have stubbified The Ensworth School, added two references (one which was an article from the Nashville City Paper when the high school opened and another for the architectural award) and added Shooter Jennings as notable alumni (although I didn't cite a reference because the only one I can find is a primary source). Smashville 15:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I added the stub tag to it, but you haven't made any edits to it. - Rjd0060 15:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article history for The Ensworth School, you haven't edited it at all. Smashville 16:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait...I see where the confusion is...you have edited Ensworth High School and I have edited The Ensworth School. The proper name for the school is The Ensworth School. I have not created a redirect since the pages have unique histories and I don't know whether it's kosher to do (I've done it before, but only because the name of the article was misspelled. "Ensworth High School" is part of "The Ensworth School". It's one school...). Smashville 16:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well then, they should be merged? - Rjd0060 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this debate; all problems have been taken care of Rjd0060 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Knowledge and Information[edit]

Institute for Knowledge and Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

It was felt that my prod was premature. Nothing has happened to the article in ten days so I say "non-notable". -- RHaworth 03:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Agree with non-notable. Even the creators' web pages (here and here) don't mention it. ObfuscatePenguin 05:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should be speedied, as it doesn't assert notability. Reads like spam, no refs, etc. Google returns no relevant hits. Spam for a made-up organization? faithless (speak) 06:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 11:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delele - Even if just on the grounds that it is a rubbish article. It tells you nothing. What is it? Where is it? What references are there? Any one of them would be grounds for deletion on top of non-notable. Ben W Bell talk 20:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I put the material there having removed it from the KM page to give the group a chance to make it something. As they have done nothing it should be deleted--Snowded 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable WP:ADVERT. Doctorfluffy 17:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all. If these people have received coverage in sufficient quantity and quality for WP:N purposes, this is not in evidence in their articles or in this discussion. No other arguments to keep that are based on pertinent policies or guidelines have been made. See also the rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Pierre of Orléans, which mostly applies here as well. Sandstein 20:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia[edit]

Princess Victoria Marina Cecilie of Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

These such articles are at best genealogical entries (link to an official policy) which do not make their subjects notable. All such articles should be deleted or merged to their relevant ancestors articles, if at all, rather than retaining stubs which present their birth dates and their non-notable issue. Princes and princesses may be notable but only if they are not obscure or have done notable things. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Tatiana of Leiningen for a similar situation where an article was composed only of biographical information for an otherwise non-notable individual. Charles 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Princess Felicitas of Prussia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Ludwig of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Strong Keep (all) per my argument in this similar discussion. Two princesses and a prince who are in line to the British throne (even if they're far, far back) have undoubtedly received media coverage. Picking one at random, a Google News search for Felicitas returns a few hits, and these are only American papers, I'm sure she's received much more coverage in Germany. faithless (speak) 06:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, one article saying she was married (my parents have one) and two or so saying that she is the daughter of her father (I appear in articles like that as well). Do I "deserve" an article? Those things DO NOT make her notable and the only notable information about her already appears on: a) the succession page and b) the genealogy of the Prussian Royal Family. Extending it further than that is superfluous and contains wholly non-notable material. Let me ask this question: Do you think that every single person in line of succession to the British throne ought to have an article saying such when (get this!) the article for the succession to the British throne already says that? Charles 13:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I responded to a similar concern here, except now I'm regretting being so polite about it. We disagree; get over it. There's no reason to be a dick just because someone doesn't agree with you. I have explained the reasoning behind my argument, and have noted the specific part of wiki-policy to back up my argument. There's no reason for you to even respond, and your temper tantrum is entirely uncalled for. Remember, AfDs don't have to be unanimous; you can have dissenting opinions. These articles probably will be deleted, so what difference does it make is someone interprets policy differently than you interpret it? faithless (speak) 00:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion. No need to uncivil about it. I can having a dissenting opinion, but I don't call anyone a "dick" (a word I would never use) nor would I flippantly point them to the essay on the matter. The policy is policy and it spells out clearly what Wikipedia is not and these articles have no distinction to separate them from that. A temper tantrum? You are posting with a lot of liberty. A lot of it. But that's alright for you to do that, I won't. If these articles will be deleted, as you say, it should be noted that it is because of Wikipedia policy and that every Wikipedia editor should be aware of it over his or her own individual opinions. Charles 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the spirit of discussion, please state your reasoning. Charles 02:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (all) I agree with the comments by Faithless above. Princes, Princesses, in line, media coverage are all points made. I have just read the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page and agree that these people fall within this (noting the inclusionary provisions not exclusionary). Alan Davidson 03:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have posted links to official policies and stated why these people are not notable. Which points supposedly make these people notable? I am truly inclined to believe that this is an example of WP:ILIKEIT given the history at Felicitas' page. I see no "media coverage" that makes these people notable for having an article. A wedding announcement, etc, does not cut it. Like I said, I have those in my family as well and I am not notable enough to have an article. I see nothing in the notability for people that supports the existence of these pages. Charles 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim of notability here. Being descended from someone famous does not make one a notable person. NoSeptember 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • DELETE or at the very least somehow merge. These people fail notability criteria. Charles 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete without prejudice. east.718 at 02:21, 11/5/2007

Gilwood Presbyterian Church[edit]

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

Article on an average church with nothing to distinguish it from any other PCUSA congregation. Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mainly reads like a directory. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 05:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could probably be a sd candidate per a7. Like Alessandro mentioned, reads like an advert for the church, and was created by User:PastorMatt, possible COI. faithless (speak) 06:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alessandro and faithless Subdolous 20:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete article is historical in nature, and is key to the understanding of linked article Odell School, North Carolina. I have no current connection to the church, other than having grown up attending it.PastorMatt 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does "historical in nature" mean? Are you saying that it is a church of historical significance? If so, please demonstrate that; no one here wants to delete a good (or potentially good) article, but currently this article doesn't tell us why this particular church is notable. Has the church witnessed a historic event, was it designed by a famous architect, or something of that nature? Keep in mind, when telling us why the church is important be sure to back up claims with reliable sources. But keep in mind that churches usually don't meet notability requirements. Perhaps it would be prudent to merge this article into the article for the town you mentioned? If you're convinced that the church is notable, try to find some sources in reliable, independent media (most likely the local newspaper or books written on local history). A pretty good (and very convenient) way of finding sources is using Google News and Google Books. A church doesn't need to be St. Peter's Basilica to be notable, but it does need something. I recently created an article for a local church; you can give that a look to see an example a church which is notable even if it isn't world-famous. faithless (speak) 01:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your battlefield is not my battlefield, nor your values mine. We are mutually irrelevant. PastorMatt 05:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you addressing me? I'm trying to help you save your article, and you have apparently responded with a cryptic and confusing (and not terribly friendly) message. faithless (speak) 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you mean? I too am a Presbyterian Christian, but I believe that this article should be deleted because it fails the notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyttend (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing notable or distinguishing here, just a description, address and phone number. If there's something special about this church that makes it deserve its own article, it should be explicitly noted. -- Dougie WII 17:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (another Presbyterian)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, NN church. Bearian'sBooties 19:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I can only write of the things I know. I have done so, and spread it out before you. If left online, I will likely expand on it as some of you have suggested, but time and life does not allow me to do so right now. Then again, someone else with more perfect knowledge and love of the subject might see my work, and take up the mantle of improvement.

I have put my knowledge out in front of you. If you choose to eliminate it from your sight, so be it. If not, it might turn out to be an interesting, and useful article.

Another thing, please don't say delete if your intention is to salvage, improve or save an article. That is really unfriendly. PastorMatt 01:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frankly I don't say "delete" if I intend to salvage, improve, or save an article. I say "delete" if I intend to delete an article. Here's my advice for you: if you want to repost it with proof of notability, copy the text onto your computer and don't repost it until you have added (onto the text file) proof of notability. Nyttend 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Life Spring Church (Spring, TX)[edit]

Life Spring Church (Spring, TX) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article on an average church with nothing to distinguish it from any other independent church Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raydean road[edit]

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

Average-looking street; the only possible claim of notability is its unsourced and dubious claim of a unique name. Nyttend 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: A unique name is hardly an assertion of notability. There are plenty of uniquely-named streets; this is just yet another. Entirely non-notable. ObfuscatePenguin 05:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable street. I doubt cites are available to substantiate the little that's here. Pigman 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -- Dougie WII 17:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 20:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica cooling controversy[edit]

Antarctica cooling controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no controversy behind this. There is only a cooling trend in some parts of the cold continent, which everyone agrees about. So, the article is really a WP:SYN. It is also worth mentioning that Doran, the scientist referenced, complained about his work being misused by the author mentioned in the article. Finally, renaming is not good since without the controversy hype in the title the material really does not deserve its own page (it would be a gross violation of weight.) Brusegadi 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Go here to see Doran's piece in the NYtimes. Brusegadi 02:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response What is a Wikipedia article but a collection of data from various sources? This article does that and seems balanced. The first line of Doran's NYtimes piecesays
In the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides.
and then it goes on to explain the controversy that Brusegadi claims does not exist.
Brusegadi deleted similar (almost identical) data from Global warming controversy without any explanation on the talk page. He did say that he would edit the material because it had "undue weight and it is not factual" - and then he deleted it all. This action also supports the position that this data is controversial - why else would he delete it before anyone else has made a comment. Also, I don't understand how facts provide "undue weight". Q Science 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to fix it, but on a closer look realized that the material did not merit so much weight in that article, much less merit its own article. Look at the refs, there must be abundant talk about a controversy surrounding the temperature trends in Antarctica. The refs DO NOT SUPPORT that. Finally, wikipedia is not merely a collection of sources. Please read WP:SYN. We are not allowed to have collections of sources that violate synthesis. If you want to say there is a controversy, you cant simply pull stuff that SEEMS controversial out of a hat, you have to have sources describing such controversy. This is just too specific for such sources to be found. Finally, no one complained about my edits in the Talk: Global warming controversy page. If you feel bad, please state your feelings there. I think no one has complained there because no one thought it was a bad edit. Brusegadi 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Geographic says that this is controversial - That study sparked a controversy because it suggested the Antarctic is not doing what most scientists expect it to do: grow warmer. And at some point, there should be a controversy about the current interpretation of ice cores since Antarctica gets colder when the rest of the planet gets warmer, and vice versa ... but so far, I have not seen published papers pointing out this possible inverse correlation. Q Science 07:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now you are talking. That is the type of reference I was looking for. It takes care of some of the synthesis in the article. Note the national geo link, as of now, is not in the article. Yet, I still feel that having an entire article is too much for something so small. Brusegadi 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Global warming controversy is currently 122 KB and Global warming is currently 83 KB ... and in both cases, wikipedia suggests It may be appropriate to split these articles into smaller, more specific articles. While I agree that a separate page gives "Antarctica cooling controversy" too much weight, it is already 41 KB (16 KB text only). At any rate, I think that it is time to review and restructure the entire Global Warming topic into a collection of smaller articles (not add even more information to existing pages). In addition, I think that the readers will be better served if NPV applies to the entire topic and not to every individual page. In several cases, the talk pages provide a better understanding of certain topics than the associated page ... partly because NPV is not followed ... and some of that should be included in the page proper. I also feel that most of the pages should be "semi-protected" on a permanent basis (I know this violates the guidelines) because way too much time is spent fixing vandalism. Q Science 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The references to Michael Crichton and others seem more than adequate to justify notability and the term controversy. Brusegadi seems to be pushing a POV and so his proposal is not in good faith. Colonel Warden 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Crichton's mention of the temperature trends in the cold continent did not create fuss. The controversy behind his book was his, in general, misunderstanding of the science. Look him up, whenever he is mentioned, it is not for the specific Antarctica issue, there are many errors in that book and the best we can do is to say that the book caused controversy, but to say that a specific theme in the book caused controversy, well, that requires good sourcing. Brusegadi 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move I don't think there is enough notable coverage to warrant the term 'controversy'. I'd rather it was titled Antarctica cooling theory and present it as a theory from all positions. The word 'controversy' to me is not neutral. My view is that some of Michael Crichton's theories verge on fringe theories. --Neon white 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Brusegadi. It's thinly sourced for any real controversy. smb 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge The controversy, such as it exists, is almost completely confined to the realm of Michael Crichton and a few political writers. Any useful factual bits can be merged into Climate of Antarctica while the manufactured "controversy" deserves little more than a passing mention in Global warming controversy. The article as presently written misleads the reader into thinking there is a substantial scientific controversy. Raymond Arritt 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the main contributor to the dispute article Mariordo 00:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) (1) I agree that the title would reflect better the content if it is called "The Antarctica cooling trend debate" or just "The Antarctica cooling debate", and as such it would belong as a section of the article Global warming controversy, from where if was deleted without fair notice. I also did that summary and the cross reference to the disputed article; (2) I could put more references to the actual debate, in fact, I included only one reference (not text) as an example, which was deleted by Neon white, just before Brusegadi set the flag on the article. On a second-thought I agree with that deletion because even thought it will demonstrate the existence of a controversy, most of those materials come from radical advocates of both sides, politicized comments and lots of personal attacks, instead of attacking the arguments, in summary, it will introduced improper opinions to the article/ (3) As I did answer to Neon white, I was still researching in the web for to more pieces of information, such as the reply from the authors of the research, which I knew existed and I already found (it’s the same NY Times OP-ED mentioned above), and later (since this task is going to take lots of reading), I was going to try to summarized what the new 2007 IPPC Report says on this subject, regarding model simulation limitations in the Southern Ocean and lower confidence with Antarctica’s climate, and, the regional forecasting from the IPPC. As an example, I will edit today Mr. Doran rebuttal to the misuses of this research. (4) If you read the whole article, you can see that NASA has published independent information from Doran et al, showing that indeed there is a cooling trend, together with NASA’s official explanation in the context of global warming. So, it is not just a debate regarding Doran et al research. With more time, other scientific papers on the issue would be added, enriching the article; (5) I am relatively new to contributing to Wiki (which I also do for the Spanish and Portuguese sites), so I am not very familiar with the formats for referencing at the end of the article, format that I already studied, and was planning to use/edit after completing the two additions mentioned above. Anyway, the references are everywhere in the article and at the end, they are just not properly formatted. I will wait for your decision before working more on this article, except for the inclusion of Doran’s response to the debate. Thanks.[reply]
  • Comment The delete source was from the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, which has a clear POV and is not a great source for anything accurate and in my opinion didn't comply with WP:V. I still favour keeping the article in some form. --Neon white 00:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Comment After adding Mr. Doran response, I now have no doubt there is a real debate, just search the Web as he recommends. He defends better than me the validity of this article. Please read it. Also, click the wiki entry for Peter Doran. Mariordo —Preceding comment was added at 01:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please read WP:NOR, specially WP:SYN. You cannot take something Crichton said, the response by Doran, and then write an article calling it a controversy if their dispute has not been documented by observers outside such 'controversy.' So you have plenty of sources, but none actually advances the position of the article (calling the mess a controversy.) By having this article, we convey on the readers the impression that there exists a massive controversy (like Global warming controversy) when there is really none. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY you will need a couple of verifiable sources discussing the 'controversy' as outsiders to merit an entire article to the subject. Brusegadi 06:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is exactly why i favour retitling it Antarctica cooling theory. --Neon white 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not just Crichton/Doran. Here's a Senate speech which includes Antartcia as an issue: Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice. . The Senate Environment Chairman and CNN are both notable and disagree = controversy. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden 18:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But not a scientific controversy -- just clueless politicians and reporters. Raymond Arritt 18:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the use of the word "theory", I thought it was an unexpected fact that Antarctica is cooling. And what difference does it make if the controversy is scientific or not - if the newspapers and other non-scientific publications make an issue out of this, then discussing it here will help to clear the air. In fact, not discussing it will support the position that there is some kind of conspiracy to hide the facts. Instead, this page will provide a venue to explain how Global Warming requires that Antarctica gets colder. Q Science 19:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comemnt - I agree that explaining it is good. Yet, explaining it in its own page brings forward weight issues. We can have a redirect and move the relevant material to either the Global warming controversy or to the Antarctica climate article. Brusegadi 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final Comment I did review WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOTABILITY, and fully agree that balance and neutrality is a must. So let me make some final comments (I hope): (1) Regarding the title: whether as an independent article or as part of another as Brusegadi suggested, the word “Controversy” must be deleted. My suggestion is to change the title to “The Antarctica cooling argument” or “The Antarctica cooling debate”, and definitely is not a “Theory” because; (2) Clearly, the debate is not regarding the cooling trend, I checked other scientific sources and all are in agreement with the observed data, but I think NASA’s picture should be enough (even the 2007 IPPC Report acknowledges this trend, recognizing that the warming was observed only in the Antarctic Peninsula -see section 11.8.2- [33] and discusses the challenges it represents for the simulation models, which I intend to summarized in the article, if it survives); (3) The debate is definitely not within the scientific community, but rather a public debate and one big issue is the misuse of research results. Therefore, I modified the beginning of the article to simplify, to make it more neutral, and to make clear what the real issue is (trying to follow the content of the first paragraph in the Global warming controversy article). Please read it. Also I tried to make clear what the climate scientists’ participation has been (which I am not sure if it is appropriate for WP:WEIGHT). Editing improvements are welcome to achieve neutrality in the article, and as a previous commentator suggested, the article can be enriched by other wiki contributors and the addition of future research results. Mariordo —Preceding comment was added at 01:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just made an editing pass to cut some tendentious stuff and reduce the overall weight. Seems fine now. Colonel Warden 09:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I think NASA’s picture should be enough - I've just removed the picture. Its wrong. And misleading, in that it appears to carry too much weight. I don't think the cooling trend is well established: the AR4, ref'd apparently in support of cooling above, actually says Observational studies have presented evidence of pronounced warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but little change over the rest of the continent during the last half of the 20th century William M. Connolley 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editing by Colonel Warden was great for balance, but the latest from William M. Connolley I think was hasty and shows he did not make enough research or has other intentions. I do dispute the deletion of the NASA picture, which is properly referenced and hosted and explained in a NASA site. First, NASA's info is much more comprehensive than Doran et al, covering a wider area, and actually NASA's picture did not say anything about how much the temperature drop was. Second, read carefully the IPPC report, when they say the change in temperature is almost nill, they are talking over a longer period than the 20 years covered by NASA (which of course will reduce the mean and by the way, that text does not presents the citation for that conclusion), which is when the trend is detected. Here it seems to me the editor is trying to bias/skew the information presented directly from a reliable source. As Brusegadi at the beginning of this discussion: "There is no controversy behind this. There is only a cooling trend in some parts of the cold continent, which everyone agrees about". This latest editing is trying to hide this fact, or at least, trying to minimize the existance of the cooling trend, which I thought was not under question (there are plenty of references in the WEB, and will bring more if necessary).Mariordo 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The NASA picture was the best bit. I'll revert that deletion if you haven't already. Colonel Warden 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThanks, and notice that if you follow the web link provided by William M. Connolley all you get is raw temperature data from Antarctic Weather Stations, nothing to support his claim.Mariordo 15:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - if the NASA pic was the best bit, and its wrong, then the article should die William M. Connolley 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - it was best in the sense that it showed the issue in a clear, graphical manner. If you dispute the actual data then this is an interesting aspect to the controversy. Brusegadi contends above that 'everyone agrees' that there is a cooling trend in this area. Colonel Warden 16:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If by "this area" you mean "some parts of the cold continent" (what I said) then yes. Brusegadi 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Mr. Brusegadi, given that you started the revision of this article for deletion, please go to the discussion page of the article, and check the discussion we had about sources, etc. regarding the NASA picture, including Colonel Warden constructive participation. I don't think William M. Connolley has a neutral position on this issue. On the RealClimate page he appears as co-author of some of the responses in the GW controversy. So I think he is in a conflict-of-interest position and if he couldn't maintain a neutral position, he should have refrained from participating in this discussion, or hastily deleting a reliable source (NASA) based on his original research or personnal interpretation of data. Actually, the author, Mr. Comiso did a similar analysis for the Artic, and there are several papers by him on this area of research (using satellite pics to define trends). It's all in the discussion page of the disputed article Mariordo 00:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A good faith interpretation of Dr.Connolley's action is that he is an expert in the field in question concerned about the factual accuracy of wikipedia. It is not uncommon for organizations to publish over-simplified images for the general public when the same images would not survive the scrutiny of the experts in the relevant field. You are using the image to illustrate the point made by Doran et al. So, you are using an image that was not meant for peer-reviewed use to illustrate something discussed in a peer-reviewed publication. This association is dangerous because it guides the reader to an over-estimation of the image's validity. I think that if you want to illustrate the paper, you should try to find highly scrutinized visual aides, preferably from the paper. Brusegadi 01:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation and your patience, but the picture is indeed based on research published on peer-reviewed paper by Mr. Comiso, see The Journal of Science 13:1674-96, 2000 (you can read it at [[34]] There the sat pics for every year are shown, which will be too much space comsuming for a Wiki article. I know he is a reputable climate scientist (I Wiki his name), and just by chance, the two citations/transcriptions I put from the beginning in this article happens to be organizations that Mr.Connolley participate or work for. He has done research (regarding to the ice thickness) finding there is a better approach to make the estimates than NASA's approach. So, sorry, but he doesn't seems to be neutral about this discussion. In my view, the way the scientific method works, all serious parties are welcome to a scientific debate, thus the Antarctica cooling article should include his findings (even if only applied to the methodology/and I don't know if this violates Wiki policy), and some others peer-reviewed publications after (e.g. see Thompsom and Solomon, Science, 2002) and what the 2007 IPCC has to said about Antarctica. Science progresses by a bunch of people resolving parts of the puzzle and it is not reasonable to expect 100% consistency, or have one of the puzzle solvers type delete without consulting others. Anyway, so far I have not found a single scientific source denying the slightly cooling trend of some areas in the interior of Antarctica (particularly near the South Pole Area, which is exactly what the picture shows). Even RealClimate and the British Antarctic Survey (Mr.Connolley organization's) accept this trend as a fact. Mariordo 03:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He removed this picture, which does not show up on the link you provided. Brusegadi 04:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry I didn't wrote it clear. The paper presents the information disaggregated, this is, one picture for every year, that's why it is not practical to put it here, there are too many photos. For the specific references in NASA's website see [35], Comiso's research is cited below that webpage, together with others sources. The actual picture in Wiki says "NASA Earth Observatory image based on data provided by Josefino Comiso, NASA-GSFC". Mariordo 05:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is *not* based on peer-reviewed research, it is in fact directly contradicted by reseach published by Comiso, as I've explained on the articles talk page William M. Connolley 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought thes issue discussed in the article was only debated on the public domain. The latest editing by Mr. Connolley can now mislead the readers suggesting there is indeed some controversy among the climate researchers, in which clearly he has a strong position. Anyway, this latest editing requires improvement, now the beginning of the article reads very weird and unbalanced. Finally, I have to agree with Colonel Warden, this now is looking a lot like Connolley's original research and the deletion of NASA's picture looks a lot like censorship. I am finished working on this article since it has become the property of Mr. Connolley. Mariordo 22:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaking this page for the talk page of the the article itself - see you there. It also isn't the ranting-about-censorship page either. And who is Mr Connolley? William M. Connolley 22:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently the reason for deleting it is that a few people on their own personal opinion think the concept invalid. This is an absurd response to a WP article--if the article needs balancing ,discuss it on the talk page. If one's opinion about the actual scientific status of the subject is not supported, that is not an acceptable reason to try to delete the article. A purely POV-influenced nomination. Thirty references, all on the subject -- a few from possibly non reliable web sources, but the majority of them sound. IDGG (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Personal" opinion based on WP:SYN, WP:NN and WP:WEIGHT. Brusegadi 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DGG is missing the target here. The issue at hand is the contention that there's a "controversy" over the matter, not the scientific status of Antarctic climate. BTW your contention that this is "purely a POV-influenced nomination" is way out of line and is not the type of civil and constructive behavior that you're known for. Raymond Arritt 13:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with DGG... nom looks political.Balloonman 07:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is some politics here, and I see some "model people" dumping on "data people". However, the fact that this topic has received some attention in the media and by elected officials and in the book of a well known author should be enough to make it notable. The bottom line is, our simple models are sometimes a bit too simple. And that is not a reason to censor this sort of information because it does not fit some sort of political agenda pushed by some people here. What is Wikipedia supposed to be, a scientific journal? Is it supposed to be a religious tract?--Filll 04:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. east.718 at 02:19, 11/5/2007

Anti-Russian sentiment[edit]

Anti-Russian sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The rationale for deletion is that the content on this page is not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a soapbox of political opinions about current affairs, propaganda and recruitment [36] hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. For example, the Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with.

It is a classic coatrack of unfounded accusations of anti-Russian sentiment leveled at particular countries. For example we have Britain listed as a country holding anti-Russian sentiment, yet the only evidence is some unfounded accusations by the Russian ambassador in the wake of the Litvinenko assasination. The article cites some survey regarding negative perceptions of Russia: 62% in Finland, 42% in the Czech Republic and Switzerland, 37% in Germany, 32% in Denmark and Poland, 23% in Estonia. Yet we don't see sections on Finland, the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Germany or Denmark in this article, but the Baltic states is listed, even though their level of negative perception is significantly lower than those other countries. The Baltic States section contains only more unfounded accusations from Russian authorities, but no real evidence of actual anti-Russian sentiment. Poland too is listed as is the USA. This article seems to only list those countries that the Russian Federation currently has difficult relations with. The page has become an inflammatory attack page directed at those particular countries, particularly with the juxtapostion of an image of a Nazi inscription "The Russian must die so that we may live" at the top of the article. This kind of thing has no place in Wikipedia.

As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but had become a sort of rolling "complaints board" where the latest accusation or innuendo published in the Russian press is posted. For example, at the height of the difficulties with Georgia there was a section on Georgia, and a section on Austria after some hotel had an issue with drunk Russian tourists [37], but no mention of the UK or the USA, since Litvinenko or the missile shield issues hadn't happened yet. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article to something reasonable like anti-Polish sentiment since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 [38], despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. Therefore deletion is warranted. Martintg 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note This article has been nominated for deletion previously. faithless (speak) 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Antisemitism,and reprimand for the nomination aimed at nothing but spilling more bad blood as if the Eastern Europe related topics have not yet seen enough. --Irpen 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per nomination, and reprimand the previous editor for assuming bad faith. Martintg 02:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin, please cut it. With editors one knows for a while, there is no need to assume anything. --Irpen 03:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article is a mess. It is just a long list of current grievences against other countries, which is four times longer than the historical section. For a model "Anti-xxx sentiment" article see Anti-Polish sentiment as an example of a reasonable article which discusses the historical aspect only. Martintg 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article's being a mess alone is not a reason for deletion. The article should be deleted if either the topic is non-encyclopedic, which is not the case since Russophobia is a known scholarly term very well established, or, if topic is valid, if the article and its history in the current shape and form are totally useless for the coverage of the topic. Being a mess, largely because it was turned into a battleground by some here, the article contains valid and relevant facts as well as useful references. --Irpen 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It could perhaps be part of a wider discussion elsewhere on the internet but this seems to be a coatstand on which to hang complaints about other people's attitudes to Russia. I should declare an interest here as my own articles have been cited. However I think it is important to distinguish between, and not to conflate, attitudes to Russia/Russians/Russianness and attitudes to the Kremlin. It is quite possible to be a russophile with regard to language, literature and the like, while being an ardent enemy of the current leadership. In the same way, dislike for the Bush administration is not the same as anti-Americanism. Edwardlucas 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, just remove all text about attitudes to the Kremlin. Nothing to remove? ☺ Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was removed. And then instantly reinstated by those who want to have this coattrack. -- Sander Säde 09:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is not in the best shape but the topic is notable and the article is usable. I have seen quite a few new editors who when arriving to Wiki first check if Rusophobia is present and only checking thet the topic is not omitted agree that the project is not a propaganda tool Alex Bakharev 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the topic is notable, the article has remained a total mess and has not improved since the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russophobia. The only solution is to delete it and start from scratch with proper historical sources. Martintg 03:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor should this article be used as a propoganda tool to recruit new xenophobic minded editors who believe Britain, the Baltics, Poland and the USA are the main countries exhibiting "anti-Russian sentiment". Martintg 05:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article inappropriately mixes actions/reactions regarding the Russian government, those who espouse its official positions, and those who are simply Russian; attempting to create evidence of Russophobia. There are a number of topics here worthy of discussion, individually, and if cited from reputable academic research--but that is not this article. PētersV 04:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [Not saying that Russophobia does not exist, saying that Russophobia is not what this article examines.][reply]
    So, do you now what is Russophobia? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice, ie allow and recommend recreating the article. Article is a mess compared to Anti-Polish sentiment; instead of describing Anti-Russian sediment, it describes actions and allegations of the Russian government. Biased WP:COATRACK to make a WP:POINT. -- Sander Säde 05:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In what aspect is the article biased? There is such thing as "anti-Russian sentiment", like anti-Polish or anti-German. Why the article has not to exist? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should read what has said, before starting to protest? Article is not about russofobia, article is about Russian politics (you know, the thing where government picks a new "enemy of Russia" every six months, calls that country russofobes and biggest enemy of Russia, until they find a new target). That is not russofobia, that is just shameful. -- Sander Säde 09:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Subject is notable and cited, and nominator gives no rationale for deletion. Also, it should be noted that the nominator also argued "Strong delete;" that argument should be discounted. faithless (speak) 06:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • While the subject is notable, the problem is the content. The rationale for deletion is that the content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The reason that the content is not suitable is that it is a soapbox of political opinions about current affairs and propaganda hung on the hook of a notable topic, a topic which this article fails to discuss in any great depth. Martintg 10:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is that this is a controversial and fiercely debated topic. There will always be people who take offense at the article, regardless of how it's written (they may even be well-meaning, but simply too involved to think about the subject rationally). Deletion is not the path to pursue here. For example, George W. Bush will always have someone who disputes neutrality, and most likely has both people who say it is too pro-Bush and too anti-Bush; all that can be done is to work to improve the article. You've admitted yourself that the topic is notable, and it's obviously sourced. Perhaps it is poorly written (I haven't closely read the article), but that just means it needs work, not that it ought to be scrapped entirely. faithless (speak) 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The topic itself, that is the topic as discussed in scholarly sources, is not controversial. But this article does not cover that topic in any great detail. The Nazis showed the most extreme form of anti-Russian sentiment, but it is only given one single sentence and a quote in the whole article, while we have sections upon sections of accusations by Russian authorities leveled at other countries that they currently have poor relations with. It's just a xenophobic soapbox in its present form. Unfortunately it is impossible to improve the article since it is defended by a handful of editors who want to maintain it as a soapbox. Therefore deletion is the only option, and if the recreated article is no better, then perhaps salting is required too. Martintg 01:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. Deleting an article to start again is not an efficient or persuasive approach since there's nothing to stop the article's advocates from putting all the same material into the new version. Colonel Warden 07:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article's advocates recreate the deleted article with the same content, then it can be speedy deleted. This topic needs a fresh start so that it can be developed into something reasonable like anti-Polish sentiment. The first step is deletion this non-encyclopedic content and its edit histories. Martintg 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The vitriol used by the nominator actually proves that the article su!bject is notable. As others have argued, the article is in a mess because it is being used as a battleground by Russophobes.--Paul Pieniezny 09:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Russia, its language, politics and culture are quite noteable and hence arose conflicting feelings or thoughts. The nominator gave prooves that the article can be made better and expanded with entries for other countries: the nominator also gave information that Russophobia is quite wide-spread. Russophopia is just an object to be described like other objects in an encyclopedia; like other phobias (Antisemitism, anti-Polish sentiment and so on) it can take different forms, from hate towards any political moves of Russian goverment to hatered towards Russian language and culture. --Russianname 10:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This conflation of dislike for the policies of the current Russian government with a dislike of Russian language and culture and lumped together into one article is precisely the problem with this article. As it stands, this article does not reflect "anti-Russian sentiment" as defined in the scholarly sources, but is a soapbox to propagandise the view that opposition to the policies of current political elite in power in Russia is an expression of anti-Russian sentiment. Martintg 10:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is a strong Baltic Hate love group, most likely funded by their governments if not the CIA, who want to polarise wikipedia, there were previous attempts to hijack the article (and delete it), this is disgraceful and does them no credit. The article depicts numerous aspects of current politics, and besides given that the editors themselves are openly opinionated and delete complete refrenced sections with no consensus. Its not the article's fault, its the truth in it that hurts them. --Kuban Cossack 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent joke, "funded by their governments if not the CIA"! Straight from the Cold War paranoia. -- Sander Säde 10:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well not directly, but certainly brainwashed by them... :) --Kuban Cossack 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't WP:THREATen me, the whole AFD can be reported as such, or this edit. Besides I did not participate in the arbitration, yet as you requested I changed the remark...;)--Kuban Cossack 11:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are one humorous fellow. I'll be waiting for my paycheck form some obscure agency then, I could use an extra income.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as a compliment, your love for Russia has never been so...recognised.--Kuban Cossack 16:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where did Martintg make a legal threat to you? Methinks you should read policies before linking to them, Kuban kazak. -- Sander Säde 16:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Subject is certainly notable and well-referenced. If article needs to be cleaned up, it should be cleaned up, not deleted. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic is notable and well-referenced, however the content does not describe the topic in any detail, it is just a collection of accusations against a list of countries. Martintg 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite but Keep The article is a mess and is bordering on biased in places. It is however a subject that is valid and seriously needs a rewrite.Alberon 11:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In what aspect is the article biased? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All concerns expressed in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Estophobia are valid for this article too. This article is a mixture of original resarch and synthesis. Lets look around. Anti-Estonian_sentiment is stuck as a redirect with serious political implications and Estophobia, that was going to be moved to Anti-Estonian sentiment, deleted. Most nations are hated by someone. Why this selective treatment? One of the arguments for deleting Estophobia was that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no excuse. This is the other crap. Lets see some consistency. --Alexia Death the Grey 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Estophobia was deleted because of its WP:NOR, Russophobia has books written on it. If a topic that has numerous studies done on it does not deserve an article, what's the point of having wikipedia articles such as Anti-Semitism, or Anti-Americanism. Are going to list those for deletion as well? --Kuban Cossack
      • Sure, there are plenty of books written about Russophobia, but this article does not cover that topic. The article is basically just a list of accusations by Russian officials against a list of countries. Martintg 19:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Alexia Death the Grey. WP:NOR clearly applies here. Subdolous 15:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOR does not apply here, as the article has 55 refrences! Including those from opposing parties. If we delete this, make sure you put Anti-Semitism for AFD as well. --Kuban Cossack 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is still OR, because it syntheses those references into something that is not in the scholarly sources. Martintg 19:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Synthesis is OR. Also, "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. See WP:WAX. Subdolous 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nomination. It has become a sort of complaint board, where everything that some Russians don't like is piled up without any regard for scholarly research whatsoever. For it to stay it needs to be rid of all the gossip and innuendos presented as facts of Russophobia. --Hillock65 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the article could use a re-write does not meant delete it. In fact the whole point that there is scholarly information available on that article means that deleting such an article to simply re-create it is pointless. A re-write yes, deletion no. --Kuban Cossack 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any evidence of an attempt to rewrite this article while this debate is ongoing, so I doubt very much that any attempt to rewrite this article will be done in the future. Martintg 19:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Let me correct, this article will not be ALLOWED to be fixed, there are too many defenders round this soapbox. See how far Martintgs attempts to improve it by removing some of the "sourced content" got from the article history.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Antisemitism, this is a reflection of what is happening. Deleting it won't eliminate anti-Russian fervor, nor drive it underground. Rather it will only deny that it is happening. The cold war hasn't ended. And the anti-Russian vitriol will only get shriller in the lead up to the projected US attack on Iran. Tangurena 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this to Antisemitism is rather ridiculous... One is completely historic verifiable and throughly sourced topic, the other synthesized soapbox.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these reasons for deletions are really a synthesized soapbox. Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and completely rewrite it. Make it like the Anti-Polish sentiment article. Ostap 04:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Polonophobia article has been fierce battlefield for years and there's little hope this won't happen in the future. Pavel Vozenilek 20:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I ask the person to clarify his position, does he want to keep and re-write it or actually delete altogether, becuase you can't have both. --Kuban Cossack 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realize this topic is notable, and I think there should be an article. But in the state that its in now, it is not acceptable. I guess thats a "keep", but in my opinion its unencyclopedic and it needs to be re-written. Ostap 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What thing in the article is not encyclopedic? Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very real and very notable. Everyking 09:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While anti-Russian sentiment does exist (actually, anti-any nation phobia) Wikipedia has very poor track with this kind of articles. They invariable turn into haphazard collection of scares and horror stories today's media are so fond about, lacking cohesiveness and structure. This article is no exception.
Until there's some way to keep such texts based on academic research they should be deleted or renamed according to List of recent media views of XYZ pattern. Pavel Vozenilek 17:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, way off the target:-) Not so recent at all. Looks like you didn't read the article carefully. `'Míkka 22:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I see" at least 50% of the text are anecdotal evidences from the 2000s. For example: 19th century British jingoism and Russian bear scare is covered in fewer sentences than recent twaddle of an ambassador in the UK. Sorry but this is not what I would expect from encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 04:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Are we moving wars into WP? Can you define what an "anti-X-nation sentiment" is without relating it to a specific space and time? So move the relevant info to relevant articles and delete this abomination (BTW, I'm from the former Eastern Block and I know what an anti-Russian sentiment is, but I keep my mind clear). adriatikus | 18:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This 'anti-X-nation' series has the same weight as people against books printed with Times Roman 11pt. While such anti-Ru sentiment occurred in specific regions at specific times, summing them up in an "overview" article smells like hate-driven. There aren't people against Times Roman 11pt generally. There may be some in specific situations (peculiar alphabets, or specific materials like ad prints etc.). But would be insane to sum them in a category against Times Roman, the same is insane to sum specific situations into a general anti-X-nation articles. This article (like all in this anti-X-nation series) does nothing but sums discontinuous (in space and time) events. More, the reasons don't have a denominator. What this kind of articles does is (1) mixes random (although accurate historically) situations who's only common term is the X-nation, and (2), subsequently, leads the reader into thinking the events have in common the "X-nation", so... (and speculations may begin). One could point that this is a valid gathering of facts based on one criteria, the "X-nation". This argument fails, because the next logical step would be drawing (partial) conclusions relative to X-nation as a whole. But the reasons for such anti-X-nation sentiments aren't primary against the X-nation, but against specific groups (e.g. political leaders, army commandants), specific actions, specific situations. The danger here is that, differently from "the properties of number N" which have no moral value, gathering such data about nations easily transforms itself into thinking "they, as a whole, have this characteristic", or "they as a whole did that". In this case (Ru related) a proper article would be anti-Soviet sentiments, or anti-Communism sentiments, the "blamed" being not a nation, but a system. adriatikus | 04:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and verifiable concept. The article is reasonably structured and has a referenced historical section. All of it is not an indiscriminate "coatrack": examples are given to illustrate some countries/ethnicities. At the same time the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed. `'Míkka 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Not that I have anything against coatracks, I have one at home, where I keep my hat. Or maybe it is a hatrack then? But coatracks don't belong into wikipedia, and this is clear example of that. The article is full of synthesis and false claims, I don't see any reason why we should waste time on correcting it and arguing with other editors who like the synthesis. Suva Чего? 15:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    False claims, you said? Just go and remove it! Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: There is little scholarship here at all. All it is is a sounding block for pro-Russian POV Bandurist 19:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk about some of the POV articles that you created, and revert-warred on, shall I list those for deletion as well? --Kuban Cossack 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is relevant exactly how? Also, remember when you asked not to be threatened, just a bit upwards? Please don't threaten others, too. -- Sander Säde 20:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The subject is notable and relevant. But amid all this "debate", will anyone actually take the criticisms voiced herein and raise the quality of the article? I agree with Mikka that the nominator presents a reasonable criticism of the article that should be addressed. And why is it titled Anti-Russian Sentiment (ARS) rather than Russophobia if, as Kuban Kozak points, out Russophobia has a developed body of scholarly work on it. My last point, going through the article, there is no section where a reader can find the categories or conditions that qualify event A as ARS/Russophobia and event B as not ARS/Russophobia; there is no definition. Lack of such section gives the article a sense of arbitrariness and the perception that it may be afterall just a collection of news flashes salient at the moment. Too bad, because as I said above, the topic is of note.--Riurik(discuss) 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "raise the quality" - I think it will be done after the vote closure. With modern admins you never know what brick will hit you. `'Míkka 02:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — not the best article, but topic is important.DonaldDuck 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Denial of Anti-Russian sentiment existence and importance, which fuels attempts to delete this article by some editors, itself shows how strong and pervasive this Anti-Russian sentiment is.DonaldDuck 11:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray, who denies "existence and importance"? The problem is that article is not about russofobia or anti-Russian sentiment. The article is about cases alleged by Russian government and media to be russofobic - or just cases involving Russians abroad - and overall is a biased coatrack attempting to make a WP:POINT. Not an encyclopedic article analyzing the origins and current situation in unbiased and NPOV way. That is the issue here, not "russophobia denial". -- Sander Säde 13:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To make description unbiased and NPOV article should be improved, not deleted.DonaldDuck 05:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Russophobia is the subject of researches of scientifics, for example, Igor Shafarevich--86.57.204.205 12:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)--Alexander Sokolov 12:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — is important, interesting text.--Vizu 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC) — Vizu (193.138.247.100) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep this relict from Cold War times. Really exist, you see it in Holliwood production :-(
And about "WP:SOAP - Propaganda, advocacy" - look it in gay-wiki-pages, but not there. Alexandrov 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you just happen to come to en.wikipedia whenever someone is rallying up people on ru.wikipedia? -- Sander Säde 21:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I often use some materials from en-wiki and I saw this discussion. Serebr 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the topic itself might or might not be Wikipedia worthy the present article is almost completely useless, right now being simply a lumping together of various claims of russophobia made by Russian media. Let me stress however that the deletion of this article in its present form does not in any way prevent the creation of an encyclopedic article in the future that would disscuss the alleged dislike towards Russians as showing both the reality and how the issues are reported by Russian media in order to maintain a siege mentality and support forces that more or less directly wish to recreate the soviet empire. --Grzegorz Chrząszcz vel Brzęszczykiewicz 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Your dislike to recreate the Soviet (or German, or Martian, or something else) empire (or kingdom, or khalifate, or something else) has not to be a ground for article deletion. Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — it's a very important article.--JukoFF 17:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of articles on various anti-national sentiment. Anti-Russian is nothing different, and I see nothing in this article that make it more biased than Anti-Irish racism, for example. Garret Beaumain 17:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep it is not better as Antisemitism oh Holokost--Jaro.p 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Users: Jaro.p, JukoFF, Serebr, Alexandrov, Alexander Sokolov all have only contribution list of adding ru: interwiki links. This exactly matches the criteria of canvassing in ru.wiki -- Users who have account in en wiki for adding interwiki links have voted. Suva Чего? 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Related thread is here Suva Чего? 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ну какие ещё комменты может здесь дать эстонский гражданин, если его премьер-министр одевается в нацистскую форму и позирует? Что, всех проголосовавших за оставление туда записал, сам критерии определяешь?--80.249.229.48 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.120.128.31 (talk) [reply]
    • I have some edits in en-wiki and I am an active user of ru-wiki i.e. I am a real user, not "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet". Serebr 01:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete-serves as posting grudges against countries that were occupied by Soviet Russia and naturally don't remember the time in positive view.--Molobo 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus, you admit they have Anti-Russian sentiment there?Garret Beaumain 17:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dislike for a state doesn't mean phobia for a people. Otherwise you would claim people fighting Nazi Germany and its legacy were germanophobes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molobo (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they extend their hate on modern germans, they are.Garret Beaumain 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no evidence in reliable sources that hate has been extended anywhere, hence it's WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Martintg 23:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments against the article are a bunch of demagogy possibly backed by political intrigues in some states. The article is not a coatrack. Incnis Mrsi 22:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Strong Keep. This topic is vary notable! If you wanna to delete subj, then it needs delete Antisemitism too. Rusophobe ¡NO PASARAN!--Paukrus 23:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article confined itself to the topic "russophobia" as defined in the scholarly sources [39], I would have no objection. However this article does not cover this topic in any detail. All we have is sections upon sections of the latest synthesised accusations levelled against countries found in the media, in a kind of rolling attack board. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground, and declarations of "Rusophobe ¡NO PASARAN!" is inappropriate nor justification to retain a deeply flawed article in an encyclopedia. Martintg 03:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is substantially the same and has not improved since the previous deletion debate was closed on July 19 [40], despite all the promises to rewrite and improve the article by those who voted to keep. It is impossible to improve it since there is a group of editors who want to maintain it as a WP:SOAPBOX. Therefore deletion is warranted. Martintg 06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right. That is canvassing by User:DonaldDuck, which is hardly a reason to delete this article though. Biophys 16:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles of this type IMO usually appear with minority groups where they document persecution, and acts of inequity. In the case of Russian - this is an imperialist group and will naturally cause dissent no matter what it does. I do not see similar articles for anti-American sentiment (which no doubt exists) anti-Arabic, Anti-French, anti-English. I don't know, but an imperial giant like Russia shouldn't cry if it hurts someones feelings. It is so trivial. If however the article documents or tries to document an organized campaign of changing public opinion then this should be documented and documented well. Currently it looks like a gripe box - "Mummy he hit me!" type comments just don't sound scholarly at all. Bandurist 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notified the canvassing few comments back. I am also not sure if deletion is going to help anything. But at it's current state the article is not encyclopedic. It's mostly clear synthesis and otherwise many of the stuff can hardly be considered to be connected with anti russian sentiment. I think the article should definitely be rewritten. But I don't know anyone who could pull that off without getting into fight with numerous people. Suva Чего? 17:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 21:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiltja[edit]

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

no source - possible OR Chris! ct 02:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are some sources (such as [41]), but they don't really give too many details. I'm going to reduce to a stub that's sourced Bfigura (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - by no means OR, though it's going to be hard to expand this beyond dicdef. A glance at Google Books finds sources that give some details of construction, use and associated customs. Gordonofcartoon 04:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added some sources. Quite easily verifiable; article needs help, not deletion. faithless (speak) 07:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - referenced and seemingly factual. What's the problem with it? Ben W Bell talk 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After checking upon this, I see nothing wrong with it. As Faithless said, it simply needs improvement. Koryu Obihiro 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.187.181.22 (talk) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 05:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joyner[edit]

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

NN, single move actor, lots of OR Toddst1 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep--JForget 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Washington Jr.[edit]

Earl Washington Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:COATRACK and NN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but the article does need work. I can see news articles from 1994 to 2006, 679 in total. From the limited view (without paying money) via google news archive they appear to cover him, his life, the sentence, a campaign to free him, the pardon and the subsequent compensation. Appears to be ample to make a neutral and quality article - Peripitus (Talk) 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to significant coverage in the media, including the NY Times, Washington Post, and PBS Frontline, a widely-reviewed book has been written about Washington and his case. Hal peridol 02:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really WP:COATRACK, article seems notable. Chris! ct 02:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable source, the neutrality of point of view may be solved by improving this article and not by deleting it, which will just destroy knowledge — Esurnir 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage given to notable innocent man sentenced to death through prosecutorial malfeasance. FCYTravis 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not coatrack. WooyiTalk to me? 04:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't seem that biased to me, if at all. Definite keep though as it is clearly notable.Alberon 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any COATRACKiness or bias. Exactly what about it did you feel was COATRACKy.Red Fiona 18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems to be a notable person and there is nothing wrong with the article that I can see. Steve Dufour 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Can't get past original research and what wikipedia is not. I'll delete this. . Mercury 22:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clients of Scott Boras[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion as: list is entirely unsourced, largely unsourceable, and as such unreliable. that makes its already doubtful encyclopedic value even more doubtful. Was deleted but contested with rationale: "Scott Boras is an influential and controversial baseball agent, and it's reasonable to want a compiled list of the players he represents, especially since his company does not release this information."

IMO, if "his company does not release this information", this article is a complete load of original research and should stay deleted, so here we are. Resurgent insurgent 01:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article made up by large load of WP:OR. Violates WP:DIRECTORY Chris! ct 02:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual "big deals" are certainly sourceable. However, the rump of this article is definitely OR. Nobody argues with the notion that Boras is "influential" etc., but the fact of representation, if sourced, can be reflected in the individual player's article, and the notable deals should be reflected in the Boras article. However, his representation of random shmoes is irrelevant. Hence, this list needs to go. Arbeit Sockenpuppe 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree it is, at base, WP:OR and violates WP:DIRECTORY. Pigman 16:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - looks like OR to me. I'm not sure it'd be a worthwhile list even if it *was* sourced, to be honest. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Merge into Scott Boras, though I'm sure these names are already in there ; the man would be nobody without A-Rod and his other famous clients. Then delete this ego piece Mandsford 23:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per mandsford. This is interesting stuff iom Tiptopper 01:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Scott Boras. --Brewcrewer 16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No way to prove most of these guys were clients of Boras. Any relevant info should be merged into his page. Spanneraol 01:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, no assertion of notability, advertising, and lastly copyright violation of their only press release announcing the starting of the site - which happens to be dated three days ago. Resurgent insurgent 02:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DisasterVictim.org[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article promotes a website whose notability is not asserted. No Google hits at all, not even for the site itself. Reads like a news release. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Janet, Perkins[edit]

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

NN, self-published author, host of local, self-produced CATV show Toddst1 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn vanity press adspam. JJL 01:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as I originally tagged it. News release, vanity, self-promotion, spam, you name it. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above Chris! ct 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Realkyhick. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for not asserting notability. Snowball time too. Bfigura (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xulon Press = self-publishing, which doesn't lend notability, and neither does local-level cable TV. Accounting4Taste 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does she really have a comma in her name.....? ChrisTheDude 07:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Strong per notable, non-. shoy (words words) 12:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, no independent coverage, no relative Ghits. SkierRMH 02:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but she speaks at various "churhches" ... And flies on NorthWorst Air... Delete Tiptopper 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eastshore Estuary[edit]

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

no reliable sources - possible OR - could be a hoax - google returns 6000 hits, but none of them indicate its existence Chris! ct 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless good sources are provided. There is certainly an estuary there and the Eastshore State Park but all of the google hits appear to be wikipedia mirrors. Nothing in google scholar, news or books. Does appear to be a made-up-name for part of a real geographic feature - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this a hoax? There is obvious notability. I see plenty of attention to the estuaries in this subregion, website, newspaper and book as a start, so the notability standard is met for the article's existence. The question I see is the name choice. And geographically, the name makes perfect sense for this article topic. Is there a better choice for the name? If yes, use it, otherwise this seems like the best name for an article about a notable topic. SaltyBoatr 17:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But is there a thing called the "Eastshore Estuary" ? We can't just make up names here for things. No sources I can find, and it seems none of the links you've provided, mention such a thing. A single good source that even mentions "Eastshore Estuary" may be enough. The links mention estuaries but not this one. Is there anywhere a source that claims this confluence of creeks forms an estuary ? The article claims that "Eastshore State Park" is within the estuary but the park's website does not mention this. Check out the map at the bottom of the park website... no mention of an estuary at all, just a park adjoining SF bay - Peripitus (Talk) 20:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is this thing. Certainly. I provided three cites[42], [43] and [44] and when I went checking yesterday I found many others. You actually are using a straw man argument, (perhaps unintentionally). You argue that the name of the thing is wrong, therefore the thing is wrong. But logically, that does not follow. This regional estuary is clearly distinct and notable, even if the name is variable. I think Eastshore estuary would be a better name than Eastshore Estuary. SaltyBoatr 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The estuary in question is absolutely notable. It already has a name: San Francisco Bay. We can't just go around inventing names that have never been used before for arbitrarily defined geographical areas that have never been considered distinct. None of the citations you have say anything about an Eastshore estuary. -Nogood 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This looks like it was invented by the article creator; no evidence of its existence has been provided, nor has any evidence that the term "Eastshore Estuary" was ever used anywhere before it appeared on Wikipedia. -Nogood 22:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment—WRONG San Francisco Bay is the estuary of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers all the other wtarways that form marshes form them tehsmelves without the help of the SF Bay's sources, Sonoma Marsh is an estaury too, but its not the same as the San Francisco Bay Estuary, fuck i mean, with that logic the whole of San Francisco Bay would be part of the Pacific Ocean Estuary wouldn't it?CholgatalK! 23:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The cited source on the article and #1 & 2 above do not use this specific phrase. The book is not searchable (e-wise as far as I can tell) so it's unsure if it actually uses this phrase also. The Ghits are interesting, as the phrase does occur, however it looks like mainly wiki mirrors and this. Would be nice to have "official" (i.e. State of California) mention/use of this term. SkierRMH 02:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The James Crichton Society (student society)[edit]

The James Crichton Society (student society) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable only recently established student society, with no independent sources and page content mirroring its own website. Rlfb 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Their website is hosted on Freewebs--and not notable at all. It is obviously something they made up in school one day. -Domthedude001 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly non-notable, founded in 2007, no reliable sources, etc etc etc. Probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable student group with a complete lack of reliable sources. Bfigura (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and mention briefly at St Andrews University#Societies - it's real, as it's mentioned on the University of St Andrews Students Association page [45] and must be reasonably significant at that university to make it onto the neocon pundit Douglas Murray's engagements list [46]. But it's hardly notable enough for its own article. Gordonofcartoon 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's currently mentioned under media. --Bfigura (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, no reliable sources. Subdolous 15:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others here. Pigman 16:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no Gnews hits, sources, no nada.SkierRMH 02:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Merging can be done at editors' discretion. Sandstein 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Sign Language grammar[edit]

American Sign Language grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Already transwikied as wikibooks:American Sign Language/Grammar 1. – Þ  01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge anything useful at the ASL article. JJL 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resurgent insurgent 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect merge useful content to ASL article, then redirect to wikibooks Bfigura (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was about to say keep per Summary Style, however, this article is entirely redundant with the main ASL article, so I would say that delete and redirect is in order here. However, no prejudice to recreating the article as a Summary Fork since the main ASL article is quite long and it may be appropriate to split it up per WP:SUMMARY. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the linguistics section of American Sign Language and move it to Linguistics of American Sign Language or similar. The ASL article is long enough already; split the linguistics section into it's own article, removing duplication of content, of which there is currently no shortage. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who imported this page, it seems highly disconcerting that the only reason you're considering deleting this is that I transwikied. Are you seriously telling me that I can get you people to delete anything just by importing to Wikibooks?! That's a) slightly outrageous on principle but also b) pointless. There's no need to delete it just because it was used as seed material at Wikibooks. If the article here violated WP:NOT or some other Wikipedia policy then I'd understand deleting this page. But simply because it was imported?! This actually boggles my mind. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also didn't make clear that that page is not part of the wikibook. It will be split up and reformatted such that you wouldn't recognize it (bookified). That's what we do to seed material. It's not like you'll be able to do a simple redirect in any case. If that's what comes of this, make it a redirect to b:American Sign Language. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 05:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--JForget 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perry drive[edit]

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

This is a utterly non-notable Canberra suburban street Grahamec 02:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) 35°21′25″S 149°02′24″E / 35.357°S 149.040°E / -35.357; 149.040[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Grahamec 02:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google Maps provides some idea of the signifcance of the purely local street. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- or merge anything worth keeping into Chapman, Australian Capital Territory. - Longhair\talk 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing here worth salvaging for a merge. Pigman 16:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability and a search reveals nothing about Perry Drive that is more detailed than a sdtrete directory listing. I note that the author's contribution history suggests they are new to Wikipedia and may be unaware of the notability guidelines. I've left a message on their talk page in the interests of not biting anyone. Although it is not an absolute requirement to let article authors know of AfD's, in cases like this it seems a good idea so that new editors aren't discouraged by the removal of their efforts. Euryalus 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a street... unless the article states exactly what makes this street stand out from the rest (in terms of notability), then I see no reason to keep the article. ~ Sebi 04:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. -- RHaworth 16:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, no notability of general public street. Also per WP:SNOW at this point. SkierRMH 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable street. As a Canberra resident, I am not aware of any notability associated with this street and the article doesn't outline any. Capitalistroadster 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Suburban streets are NN. Twenty Years 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overflow-Crowds[edit]

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

Not enough sources, for the only source available is a MySpace link Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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


The result was Delete--JForget 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digiclone[edit]

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

Article seems to be about a currently non-existent technology; the article has no significant Google hits and is poorly cited as well. Bumm13 10:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notble neogolism. I may be way wrong here, but my understanding of the topic, but this is about computer generated imaging, not cloning per se.--Gavin Collins 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does seem to be about the creation of photo-realistic CGI animations of people indistinguishable from flesh and blood people rather than actual cloning, but a quick search of google suggests 'Digiclone' isn't a term that is in common, or even uncommon, use. Parts of the article seem to read more like an opinion piece anyway.Alberon 11:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as general goofiness. I admit it actually made me laugh out loud: "Main Applications: Destroying people who are a hinderance to your interests". I can't help imagine Dr. Evil with a copy of Poser. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No proof of the existence of the technology, or any reason for it being notable is included in the article. --Aqwis 15:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Doesn't seem to be well known. Tbo 157(talk) 19:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shift-Delete, click "Yes" when prompted The one reliable source quoted does not mention the word. I'm guessing this is a WP:HOAX, perhaps created by the ebay user of the same name, in an attempt to gain recognition. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gavin Collins and Andrew Lenahan Magus05 (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - incoherent neologism as pointed out by Gavin Collins and User:Alberon. --Juxo 19:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. east.718 at 02:15, 11/5/2007

Bernard Edlington[edit]

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

non-notable bio Ex65 22:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. No secondary sources appear to discuss the subject. 50 ghits - IMDB and other trivial pages. Doctorfluffy 23:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Just because someone manages to get into IMDB he doesn't necessarily belong in an encyclopedia, and I don't see why this one does. Greswik 22:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Rilo Kiley - It'S A Hit Lyrics
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_30&oldid=1081101572"