Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 14

< September 13	September 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travia[edit]

Non-notable and apparently defunct online RPG. Project website has been "closed for renovation" at least since April 2007 (courtesy of Internet archive); Alexa rank over 800.000 and never was less than 100.000. The majority of links in the article no longer work. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, notability isn't temporary, but is there any evidence that the game ever got out of beta? Burzmali 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing really notable about the project. It's one of a multitude of failed RPGs, the project is dead, all refs are either to dead links or to fansites. If anything, the article is unclear on many points ("It ended its open beta in March and will be finally open in summer." - what summer? 2006? 2007?) Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The references provided in the article are not reliable sources, as they are from the developer/publisher of the game. A google search shows it being mentioned a lot, but again, no reliable sources. The closest is an IGN wiki, but then of course, anybody could pop content into it. A Google news search reveals press release type information. There appears to be foreigh language coverage (Japanese), but I can't read it thus the "weak" on the delete. -- Whpq 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom locations: X[edit]

Contains nothing and will most likely never contain anything. I know people will say "part of a series", which is wrong since it's empty. Just delink "X" in the template. Punkmorten 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominators reasoning. Nuttah68 11:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bearian 17:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yeow Sun[edit]

delete - minor figure in Singapore. Only large following among her church goers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boucy - Not of major figure in Singapore, Did appear in the US Dance billboard,which is not of high relevance moreover many obscure artist have appear and have gone.More publicity and wide-spread fame is needed.followers mainly church atendee average singapore do not really knwo herMeganchua (talk • contribs)

Keep. She's well known in the Chinese-speaking region and has had a large number of singles on the Billboard charts. The problem with the article is, as the Rt.Hon.anonymous above implies, that it's overrun by rabid armies of fanboys who go to her husband's massive church and delete anything that's not sufficiently hagiographic. (Cf. Talk:Ho Yeow Sun.) Jpatokal 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, popularity in the US is not required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Assuming that at least a few of the claims made are true, she passes WP:N. Burzmali 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a "large following among her church goers" would signify notability - Fosnez 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Since establishing her career as a pop artist in April 2002, she has been involved in raising funds for various charitable organizations Her humanitarian team had been involved in the Tsunami Disaster Relief Operations (2005), building of schools and medical clinics in Indonesia and China." I would say she is notable and passes WP:N. Also I quote from WP:N, "This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For someone who is from Singapore and is the “Music Ambassador of the Olympic Songfest for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games”, how can the person be a minor figure? Jing13 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang (TV series)[edit]

Delete: Non-notable show - hardly any ghits on its own, but bound to be confused with upcoming CBS comedy series of almost the exact same name, The Big Bang Theory. It's not the similarity of names, however, but the obscurity of the incumbent. Watchingthevitalsigns 00:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A television series airing for 7 years on a national network seems notable to me. DCEdwards1966 00:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep If it's been on for a long time and has notability, obviously it should be kept. I have added a top-line disambiguation for the CBS show into the article to reduce the confusion, and hopefully that addresses your concerns. Please read up on WP:DAB before you bring up differing topics which may be confused, rather than bring it to AfD. Nate 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A seven year run on a national television network spells notability in my books. Keep; speedy as WP:SNOW if possible. Bearcat 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-Speedy Keep - programme ran for seven years on a national channel, and was very popular. Suggested close per WP:SNOW. _TheIslander 20:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infield Parking[edit]

Not notable enough, few links. - BANG ! 00:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JR Motorsports involvement may ensure success but at this time there is no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 03:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No enduring notability. /Blaxthos 11:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Involvement of JR is not sourced. Previous prod removed by anon IP w/o any improvement. Not notable. UnitedStatesian 13:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Bacon[edit]

Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. I could find a hundred professors in my city that have won random awards in their field, doesn't mean they should take up space on an encyclopedia. Also lacks references verifying information. Gthippo 23:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professor status at that date (1963) in the UK was rather rare, and he was also Dean of the Faculty of Pure Science at Sheffield according to [1] (which supports several of the article's claims). Won national Guthrie Medal and Prize and published standard textbook. Seems very clearly to meet my notion of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 23:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want references, search for "george bacon" "neutron diffraction". The links from that seem to show he was a key figure in that field and wrote the standard text on it. And if you think "neutron diffraction" is a non-notable field to be a pioneer in, note that the developers of the technique were awarded the 1994 Nobel Prize for Physics. If the two links I've provided are accurate, there should be no problem meeting all 6 criteria in WP:PROF. Thomjakobsen 23:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Originally prodded by an anon. This AfD by an editor who has made two edits: one nominating this, and the other giving hime/herself a dozen barnstars. Speedy keep as bad faith nom. DGG (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep More than enough assertion of notability (and it's more than a dozen barnstars: 1,244,879 bytes of unrendered wikicode). Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per above. --Crusio 08:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep. Without question. • Lawrence Cohen 19:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy as WP:SNOW if possible. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenon Mixtape Series[edit]

Delete mixtape series without 3rd party sources of notability, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 22:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has no place here. Individual articles already deleted. Punkmorten 07:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos 11:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 16:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 move HTTP tunnel (software) to HTTP tunnel. @pple complain 14:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP-Tunnel[edit]

Contested Prod. The article was improved slightly, but it is still rather advert-sounding, especially the Usage section. Also gives no indication about notability. Any relevant info that is not already in HTTP tunnel (software) can be merged there. Mr.Z-man 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also HTTP-Tunnel Client simmilar but about the actual client. --Stefan ^talk 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, merge and redirect Have not tried to find references but I'm sure it meets notability (google books gives 33 hits [2]) and if it does not HTTP tunnel (software) should also be deleted. ~~Not sure why you say sounds advert like, this is~~ should not be about a product, it is a method, see i.e. SSH tunnel and Category:Tunneling_protocols for more examples. Suggest Keep, merge, rewrite and redirect. Not sure which page to redirect though, I would suggest keep HTTP-Tunnel and redirect HTTP tunnel (software) to it since it is unlikely that disambig is needed, but which way does not really matter to me. --Stefan ^talk 00:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, HTTP tunnel already exists, revert disambig page to redirect to HTTP tunnel (software) delete this, unless someone can prove notability, sorry Z-man, did not check good enough! --Stefan ^talk 00:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert dab page per Stefan. Article has no attribution of notability to independent sources, either for company or software. --Dhartung | Talk 03:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the twin client article too, move HTTP tunnel (software) to "HTTP tunnel", make this redirect if it is not automatic. Pavel Vozenilek 12:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to HTTP tunnel and delete the HTTP-Tunnel Client page as well. Then move HTTP tunnel (software) to HTTP tunnel, per WP:COMMONNAME. 132.205.44.5 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Although DGG makes a good argument, there was a clear consensus for deletion, and the minimal sourcing brings up BLP concerns. However, this doesn't prejudice re-creation of a fully sourced version that demonstrates notability. Walton^One 11:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brad M. Barber[edit]

Delete unsourced WP:BLP with no evidence of meeting WP:PROF, WP:BIO, WP:N or WP:V Carlossuarez46 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little (if any) indications that he is a notable individual and no sources asserting. This is close of a speedy candidate.--JForget 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no claim of notability in the article itself as nominated, but there are such claims on his home page, which I've now linked from the article, including a pdf file collecting links to some 36 press clips. I haven't taken the time to explore which of them are nontrivial, though. I should add that this is a brand new article, properly marked as a stub, so expecting it to be in its final state seems premature. —David Eppstein 02:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. No particular acclamation; no works of note published; WP:NOT, WP:BIO. Just b/c he was someone's favourite instructor at university ... Watchingthevitalsigns 11:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PROF. /Blaxthos 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF, WP:V --Yeshivish 03:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked in Web of Science, which covers the major economics journals, and found that his most cited papers among the 20 or so published --all in really good journals--have been cited 201, 134, 120, & 101 times. Considering that citations from minor journals are not even included in the count, these are very high figures. Davis is a research university, and they knew what they were doing when they made him a full professor. Not surprised--they can judge better than we can here. At least they bothered to look up the publications record. Some people have articles that dont show the notability. Our job is to expand the article, not remove it. DGG (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meta-religion[edit]

non-notable recently invented concept/theory. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaversalism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaverse (philosophy). Anarchia 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an excuse for links to Metaversalism. Banno 23:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. /Blaxthos 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metaverse (philosophy)[edit]

One of several new articles started by the same author about a new non-notable philosophical-religious theory revealed to the public by its developer in Spetember 2007. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaversalism Anarchia 21:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitive non-notable OR. Banno 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. /Blaxthos 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New York Hamster House[edit]

Non-notable organization. Brianga 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hamsters are a little unusual, but there are rescue groups for practically every breed of dog and cat, broken down regionally. You sometimes read about them in the feature pages, but I don't think that really demonstrates notability. BTW, the WSJ claim is really an article about YouTube.[3] --Dhartung | Talk 03:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dhartung. /Blaxthos 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alright, so I'm a fan of hamsters, but that doesn't mean that this place is notable. TBH it sounds more like a way that a hamster obsessive has found to surround herself with the cute little things. ---- WebHamster 00:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tastes like chicken! MarkBul 01:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 15:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of archaic English words and their modern equivalents[edit]

Having a list of archaic English words is about as stupid as having a list of modern English words. This sort of thing is a job for Wiktionary. Alivemajor 21:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — completely unreferenced original research. --Ag ü eybaná 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Although completely unreferenced, seemingly OR; instead of deleting what has obviously been hard work for somebody(ies), somewhere(s), can't it just be tagged with "needs citation?" and hope someone(s) rescues it? What about a rename or redirect? Even just adding the word common, as in "List of common archaic English words and their modern equivalents" could refocus the article and grab the attention of grammar historians. I'm sure there are plenty of linguists and Old Englishists (pardon me) who could provide help who happen to troll the AfD or WP in general....just an outside opinion - (check the page history, I've never contributed) Keeper76 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being unreferenced is a perfectly good reason to delete an article. Please read the deletion policy. --Ag ü eybaná 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please provide a quote from that page to support your claim. MarkBul 00:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I don't think it's OR (mostly), and I could probably reference it myself if I tried. But I want it deleted because attempting such a list is a silly idea. How would we determine what constitutes a common archaic word, anyway? Do you know of any sources that say how frequently words were used in the 16th or whatever century? --Alivemajor 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most dictionaries recognize a distinction between archaic words and obsolete words. Some of these words are neither (nought, wherefore, whither, …), and many of them may or may not be obsolete but are hardly archaic (coiner, costermonger, …). At a hasty glance, the only one I noticed that is certainly archaic is dream in the sense specified. In short, this is a random selection of terms most of which do not satisfy the conditions set forth in the article's title and and intro. A full listing of archaic English words would be massive—too massive to be included or maintained on Wikipedia. Deor 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this article's interesting, but have no other view than that. Just wanted too say that if this does go, there's also a category Category:Archaic_English_words_and_phrases that will need not to refer to this article. Though maybe that the category exists, is a reason this article doesn't need to; I wouldn't know.Merkinsmum 02:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki & delete - WP:OR and unreferenced... as someone else said, "this is a job for Wiktionary". /Blaxthos 11:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was prepared to love this article, but it takes up so much space to define a mere fifty words that it's going to be a logistical nightmare... since there are more than 50 archaic words out there. The title implies that it's a list of archaic words and a list of modern equivalents, but this one has origins, meanings, "can you use it in a sentence" type examples, and, as if that wasn't enough, additional comments. I guess I could go on all day about the subtleties of the word ere. Or I could simply write "ere = before". Mandsford 14:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to delete after other's more convincing arguments. Just a shame that someone put so much work into this. Keeper76 15:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the work put into this seems wasted as it's neither accurate nor definitive. The inclusion of 'bilbo' made me wonder if a LOTR fan had stumbled across the original meaning of the word and expanded his/her enthusiasm into this. Kosmoshiva 01:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of this belongs in a dictionary if it can be sourced, but a fair bit is inaccurate and will need thorough checking before being transwikied. Nuttah68 11:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... archaic is a weasle word here ... what you might call archaic, I might be using everyday. The first para even states this. "kill'em all, and let wickionary sort 'em out." Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Verily thou shouldst dispatcheth yonder article with all the speed of the quinsy in a trollop's boudoir betwixt a cag-mag and the workhouse. Doth thine not agreest?. ---- WebHamster 01:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is original research, and not very good original research at that. The list of words included is seemingly arbitrary, and some of them aren't really archaic at all—they are "still used in British English". Strad 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. @pple complain 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pradosha[edit]

was tagged speedy for: "No articles link here even though this article has been online for 11 months. Talk page references all appear to be transclusions of the Opentask list. Article has been on Opentask list for ages. Creator of the article has not been active since October 2006 (and this was his first article). No edits of substance since creation. The facts of the article are apparently disputed, so I bring it here to the community Carlossuarez46 21:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article was originally written as spam by an SPA and then lay dormant. It has now been added to a bit in the last few days but it's unreferenced, unlinked and unloved. andy 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per andy. Marlith ^T/C 22:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Pradosha is a widely reported religious observance within Hinduism, there are numerous references out there and all that is needed is someone more knowlegable than I to make sure suitable ones are selected. In the meantime, the majority of religious observance articles for all faiths are unreferenced. Nuttah68 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's as may be, but the fact is that this particular article is unreferenced and unverified. It could be accurate or it could be rubbish - without references how do we know? If "the majority of religious observance articles for all faiths are unreferenced" as you say then they all need to be fixed or deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a prayer book! andy 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick from [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. References exist and if it would make you happier all add these to the article now. However, I would prefer to tag the article to get input from someone more knowledgeable. Nuttah68 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't follow Nuttah68's argument, which is not about the article, but about the subject of the article. The article as stands now is not worthy of keeping. That doesn't however imply that the the subject is not worthy of merit. A deletion also does not imply that the article cannot be re-created (hopefully then in a more encyclopedic fashion) -- Fullstop 16:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fullstop 16:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure I understand your argument. The article describes a religious observance. The reference I gave describe that. If you feel the article needs rewriting go ahead, but poor copy is not a deletion reason. Otherwise, what is your objection? Nuttah68 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What an article is about should be self-evident. We should not need to refer to external sources in order to figure out what an article is about.
The reasons for my delete vote have not changed (I am the original nom).

-- Fullstop 03:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see your concern. The article describes a Hindu religious practice, the reference verifies that. I cannot see why you need to consult the reference to understand the article, only to confirm its truth, which is the whole point of WP:V. Nuttah68 16:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not a factor in this AFD. The reasons for this AFD are stated at the top of this page. They were then superbly summarized by andy. -- Fullstop 19:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you want it deleted because you didn't look into the subject? The spam was deleted six weeks ago, but even when it existed it was not 'unsalvagable'. The fact tag was placed by a user who objects to a mention of astrology and can be solved with a clean up and Wikifying. The first few returns in google provide literary, academic and reliable newspaper sources. The article needs a clean up, I agree which is why I suggested tagging as such, but it meets none of the deletion criteria of Wikipedia. Nuttah68 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be a religious observance that would have sources available . So that fact that the current article is has no sources, and is missing some context is a content cleanup/improvement issue. I've tagged the article as such. -- Whpq 16:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article, now referenced, is about a well-known religious observance; being orphaned is no reason for deletion. NB: This AfD is a procedural nomination owing to an incorrectly placed speedy tag. Spacepotato 19:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Phaedriel - 23:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing WLAN and LAN[edit]

Essay, WP:OR. Quote from talk page: "This article is not written in an encyclopedic manner. It doesn't cite any sources. I'm tempted to put it up for deletion, but since it has been here for so long, maybe someone would like to attempt to re-write it first. AlistairMcMillan 21:51, 29 June 2006" It isn't going to happen... Punkmorten 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Mystache 23:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research; looks like someone in computers 101 posted a term paper. /Blaxthos 11:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what amounts to an inaccurate piece of OR. I guess posting homework to Wikipedia is a potential way of getting it reviewed before submission. It appears to have failed in this case though. Nuttah68 11:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ff m 16:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep! The article contains lots of information and is really accurate. It's nice for when you need to compare WLAN and LAN and you can find a detailed article on Wikipedia. David Q. Johnson 11:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nonsense. - Mike Rosoft 12:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brascon Maneuver[edit]

Possible hoax, was tagged speedy as such - but hoaxes are not speedy candidates, and frankly not being a doctor I couldn't tell whether this was or wasn't a hoax. The speedy requester found no ghits on this or the eponymous doctor. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, this is laugh-out-loud hilarious because of it's ridiculousness. The article basically translates into American English as "the doctor reaches around from behind (through the armpits), squeezes the breasts, and checks them to see if they are sagging, then provides a score." Can't possibly be real. I laughed out loud. Kudos, author, whoever you are. (just don't do this to wiki anymore...) Keeper76 21:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Too bad there's no operative BJAODN anymore. So frosh are going on Wikipedia to get to second base these days? --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Keeper76, although as hoaxes go, this is a well-written one. But perhaps this should be SALTed because it's so darn plausible. Accounting4Taste 06:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest delete possible, since my speedy (as nonsense) didn't work. Just plain old WP:BOLLOCKS. I think my original comments on the article talk page say it all. However, I think I might try this maneuver down at the corner bar tonight. Realkyhick 08:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a (well done) hoax. /Blaxthos 11:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopefully, the medical student or pre-med who wrote this won't get in trouble 10 years from now for doing the "Brascon maneuver" on his patients. "I was checking for neurological nipple response.... I'm a doctor." And I think when his friend Jesse finds out about this, he may experience a traumatic partial edentualation and facial contusions. Mandsford 14:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Actually, hopefully the med student who wrote this won't get in trouble ten years from now for having written this. (I really hope Brascon isn't his real last name...) And the hoax isn't that meticulous at all - it claims the reference is Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 2nd edition (2000), when everyone knows Harrison's is on its 16th edition - which came out in '05. The 14th came out in '98, and the 15th in '01. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 03:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 need for a redirect... — Scientizzle 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Hughes and Maddie Coleman[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy as duplicative but that's not among speedy criteria - we have articles about both these soap opera characters and I don't think each plot line involving one or more fictional characters deserves an "X and Y" article. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we already have articles for these characters than redirect without deleting the article to an appropriate page. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- to which? Carlossuarez46 22:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplication, no suitable redirect target. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasoning given by the nominator. Nuttah68 11:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I am the person who nominated the article and I agree it would ideally be re-directed but as Carlossuarez46 said there are two characters. Thanks for the feedback I am new to the deletion game and like the additional policing part of WP which I had not thought of doing in the past. --BustOut 19:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Mushroom per CSD G12 (copyvio). Non-admin closure. Deor 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post-gay[edit]

This is written badly, not to mention this term is not widely used to meet notability. Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like recentivism until reliable sources using this exact term in this exact frame of reference turn up(couldn't post-gay also be used for someone going from a gay lifestyle to a heterosexual lifesytle? Or "all the events, trials, and experiences of my life that have happened since "coming out" to my world or my "post-gay" events...) Keeper76 21:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not written in encyclopedic tone, dubious accuracy, probably not notable, and at best it would be a dicdef anyway, and we don't do those. Four strikes. --Lockley 22:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, badly written is not a deletion reason. Secondly, this term does seem to be widely used. In the first couple of pages of non-wiki ghits, I see articles in salon.com, Sacramento News & Review, nymag.com & a book on Amazon, not to mention several forums. --Fabrictramp 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures in Metroid, Metroid II, and Super Metroid[edit]

Even disregarding the huge amount of tags the article has of the wikipedia policies it is deficient in, the article has no outside universe information or reliable sources, and so the article is just a description of the games. Since they already have articles, this is just total duplication, and should be deleted or transwikied. Judgesurreal777 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, in-universe and noting more than a game guide so fails WP:NOT. Nuttah68 11:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Haynes[edit]

Delete Article about Simon "Spacejock" Haynes written by Simon "Spacejock" Haynes. AlistairMcMillan 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles about his own creations:

Delete non notable topics. 201.216.215.177 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of those as vanity. --Lockley 22:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but YMail. Googling that one, at least, shows it appears to be in wide use. Seems fine for a stub for YMail, at the least. Nuke the rest. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that many of the results of a Google search for ymail relate to other things, not this app. AlistairMcMillan 01:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article and Andromeda Spaceways Inflight Magazine (in stub form). Regardless of these entries' origin, Haynes has won a well known Australian literary award (Aurealis Award). Andromeda Spaceways has also won/been shortlisted for several Aus lit awards. However, both of these articles need an extensive cleanup/de-spam. Merge Hal Spacejock with Haynes' entry and delete Clunk and yMail. Outcast44 15:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Characters in The Belgariad. Feel free to merge any useful information, since I am leaving the history. --Core desat 01:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ce'Nedra[edit]

This character is not notable enough to have a separate article, information about this character is already contained in the articles about the novels she appears in. Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Characters_in_The_Belgariad . Could also be merged, but this article reads like the book and some of the information is not fact, but merely speculation about the character's personality. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simply merge and make redirect. Do same to almost all others but not Belgarion, Belgarath and Polgara because they are main characters in their own books. This must be done to characters of other books series too, like Wheel of Time and Harry Potter. Kahkonen 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Without real world information, we don't need to dive into this level of detail. -- Ned Scott 06:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CeNeDra is just as important as Belgarion... Do not edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.29.176 (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Phaedriel - 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie vs. humans[edit]

Nominated for speedy deletion under category G1 (patent nonsense). It definitely is not patent nonsense; it makes perfect sense, but it is of questionable notability and unreferenced. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as I originally tagged. It is simply something someone made up in class one day. Not notable. Realkyhick 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible weak keep, formally known as Humans Vs. Zombies aka HVZ (but the other way around is just catchier) and is becoming pretty popular on campuses, but student newspapers are normally not considered reliable enough sources for notability establishment. Goucher (claimed origin), Cornell, Wesleyan, Baylor ... and these seem to be independent campus-oriented newspapers that have covered it: Western Herald and Etownian. --Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Jonathan I like to eat science textbooks. 00:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely nonsense. /Blaxthos 11:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As much as I love zombie movies, this article is nonsense.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to Help - This is a terrible article that is unbecoming of this great game, played internationally on college campuses. I would be willing to help write a new article, if any Wikipedia enthusiasts want to help, please contact me through http://www.HumansVsZombies.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.10.175 (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game. Strong delete. - Mike Rosoft 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Characters in The Belgariad, any merging can be done as an editorial decision. --Core desat 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belgarath[edit]

This article is already contained in two or three other articles about the series. Half of this article is also speculation on the character's personality. Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Characters_in_The_Belgariad . Could be merged. Again some of this is speculation. Is it also so notable as to need it's own page? This goes for all the pages of the individual characters. See Category:David_Eddings_characters . This is an AfD, please do not take offense to this, you may object by posting here with your comments. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He is a chief protagonist in the Belgarath the Sorcerer book and also one of the main characters in Belgarion and Mallorean series (á 5 novels). Kahkonen 22:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can keep discussion in this page... WP:NOT says "A brief plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." and WikiProject Books have an project to write about characters. In my opinion, we can write articles about main character(s) (protagonist and antagonist) and a collection article of list of characters in x. We have an good example of a character article here: Harry Potter (character). And, citing AfD policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." And about "speculation", we can write about this characters personality, if we only cite our sources. Kahkonen 08:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Characters of notable books are not themselves inherently notable. Notability is not inhereted. /Blaxthos 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without significant real world information, this level of fictional detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Kahkonen --Zache 17:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. @pple complain 15:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Podorowsky, Thompson & Baron[edit]

Not very notable, reads like a press release/brochure. Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST DELETION The discussion of this law firm seems to be in line with other similar entries for law firms in Wikipedia. It does not seem to list ads for the firm or even links to their website. Its been cleaned up. Some of the figures cited in the article seem to have notability including historical figures like Robert F. Kennedy, former Wisconsin Attorney General George Thompson and Stamford Mayor Daniel Malloy. The firm is located in a historic 19th century property. The linked newspaper source, New Britain Herald, is a major Connecticut publication. The New York Law Journal source is a well respected legal publication known nationally. The ABA Student Lawyer Magazine source is not a student run paper but rather a national magazine produced by the American Bar Association. Wikipedia is great in that you can find obscure info on subjects not found anywhere else. A law firm that practices law entirely in Polish in New England seems pretty notable as well as the notes on community activism.

When researching other law firm sites under this category, I have seen a significantly smaller threshold for what notability is. Many had no substantiated sources. I see no reason for deletion. The entry has significance. The NY Law Journal is a substantiated source. NY Times and Wall Street journal require registration and are considered valid sources. Why wouldn't the well respected NY Law Journal be considered. It is probably the leading legal publication of its kind in the United States.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.28.112 (talk • contribs) September 16 2007

Comment Notability must be substantiated with verifiable sources. The notability of the New York Law Journal is not in question, but it is a premium site. As mentioned earlier, premium sites "should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." The article concerning the undergraduate activities of one of the partners does not mention the firm or offer any substantiation of the firm's notability...or, possibly, of the attorney's. It seems to be about a social club. There seems to be only one reliable source, which seems insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Note that the source in question doesn't even positively assert that the office is the only one that offers Polish--only that the individual interviewed believes it is. And it also doesn't assert that the law firm practices entirely in Polish. It says "the law office has one Polish-speaking attorney, Baron, and two Polish-speaking paralegals" and indicates that everyone else who works there is studying Polish. I agree that it's interesting that law office is reaching out to a different client base, but I'm not sure if it's notable. At any rate, I can't verify that it is. I looked to see if I could find further substantiation for the article and failed. I hope you'll have better luck. --Moonriddengirl 00:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless significantly more evidence of notability is produced. There are a number of issues with its sourcing. The first link is a wikilink, not a source. The second link is a small newspaper--may help support notability, but doesn't satisfy it alone. The third source, the pdf, is a primary source which only verifies the sale of land to an attorney; it doesn't substantiate anything in the article, and it doesn't verify notability. The fourth source is from a premium site and per WP:EL "should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article." (I don't know what it says; I didn't pay.) The final source is ~~a student paper~~ An American Bar Association magazine article about the undergraduate activities of one of the partners. A google search of the current firm name yields 7 hits, 2 of which are Wikipedia. "Podorowsky & Thompson" gets a good bit more, but it shrinks to 31 distinct, and most of those are advertising sites. (this html version of a pdf file mentions one of the partners; this one confirms the sale of the land). The earliest name hits only Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Possibly speedy. --Pekaje 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons outlined by Moonriddengirl --Fabrictramp 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedily deleted by TexasAndroid - blanked by creator. (Creator, please contact me or any other admin if the blanking was accidental.) - Mike Rosoft 13:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vengara (Kannur)[edit]

Prod contested. Aside from the part about Tipu Sultan (which belongs more in the Tipu Sultan article), it does not assert notability. The info about the "proposed" naval academy fails WP:CBALL. J-ſtan!^Talk_Contribs 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as real human settlements are notable if verifiable, per WP:OUTCOMES. The new Naval Academy seems to be a project whose construction began last year[9]; if Vengara is indeed the best place to record this, I don't see why it can't be in here. See Ezhimala Hill. --Dhartung | Talk 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a village per WP:OUTCOMES. Nuttah68 13:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was: Speedy keep - withdrawn by nominator. - Mike Rosoft 13:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cover letter[edit]

~~Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.~~Withdrawn. Captain Zyrain 19:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This doesn't strike me as being a how-to guide, and the concept of a cover letter is sufficiently notable. --Bongwarrior 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, there are a lot of how-to elements which should probably be reworded or removed. --Bongwarrior 20:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable subject, not a how-to guide. The article just suffers from unencyclopedic tone, a problem easily fixed with a copy edit. It's also rather stubby and could use some more material, references, historyical context, etc. Wikidemo 20:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove the prescriptive how-to elements. It's one thing to say e.g. "Richard Nelson Bolles advises you to yada yada yada", and another to say "a cover letter should ...". But we can still record what people say. The article should be expanded to "cover" the uses in freelance writing, as well as the extent to which cover letters' function is often handled by e-mail in the 21st century, with the "covered" document now an e-mail attachment. (There's gotta be sources for that.) The cover letter is historically related to the letter of introduction. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did that, removed the how-to elements and tried to clean it up. And there's not much left. A valid question now, is there enough left for it to stand as an article? Sure, the subject is notable, but a cover letter is a broad concept, it's just a business letter used as an introduction to attachments. Does that deserve its own article or would it be more appropriate in a list of types of business letters, or the like? Wikidemo 11:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that Google Books returns more results (2022) for "cover.letter" than for "business.letter" (1389). (And on GB, twenty results is normally pretty good.) The generic business letter has all but disappeared in modern life, but the cover letter remains. --Dhartung | Talk 10:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep The article doesn't read like a how-to guide as it does not tell you how to write the letter or what to put in one. Covering the parts of a cover letter also does not make this into a how-to guide. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discossion. Also, useful for students who use WP. Bearian 16:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This is a list of people/companies that some allege are patent trolls because in essence being a patent troll is always an allegation for no one is available to adjudicate the merits of the claim. Like all the "allegations of" articles at WP this is crap, POV, OR, with BLP problems mixed in. And yes, I'm well aware that the arbcom is considering "allegations of apartheid" articles but seems to have indicated that although those articles are crap, it is a content matter and not within their remit. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of patent trolls[edit]

Inherently POV, lead states that the term is subjective and controversial and that this list cannot even be accurate, creates BLP and libel concerns, entirely subjective, and not anything remotely encyclopedic. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the one who created the list I agree with some of the above. Properly completed and with the most notable historic examples, it could be a useful compendium of key events and reference points in patent history to illustrate the concept of patent trolling. However, as it exists now the list is unencyclopedic and keeps attracting POV edits. About half the entries are the real thing (meaning, the major instances of behavior characterized as patent trolling) and the other half are random examples. Unless someone is ready to step up and improve it, it is of only slight value to the reader. I disagree that there are BLP or libel concerns. Everything is verifiable, the list makes no conclusions, and it has the same standards as any other article here. The list is neither inaccurate or subjective, nor claims to be. The statement that the list is incomplete is from a list template. That's not a valid criticism, unless one is proposing to do away with all lists. For background, I created this list as a place to rehabilitate unruly material from the "patent troll" article that was making that article messy and unduly POV. It is sometimes useful to separate list sections out from their parent articles for quite a few reasons, not the least of which is to keep the POV editors away from the more important article. I would not be sorry to see the list go if it can't be improved, but that would mean that the main article is going to become a possible target for contention, edit wars, etc., as people try to add inappropriate examples. If we do get rid of the list someone should first down it carefully to see if there is any salvageable material that ought to be added to the main article (but not as a list), or to the articles about the specific companies involved. Wikidemo 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about turning the list into a list of companies considered to be patent trolls, requiring every entry to have a specific, notable source denoting it as a patent troll, to eliminate the possibility of OR? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 23:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "patent troll" is POV no matter how many sources you have. The neutral term is "plaintiff." Gazpacho 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - at the very least, I see obvious WP:BLP violations. Beyond that, this is original research on a neologism with hazy criteria for inclusion ("characterized by the media"). POV dumping ground. /Blaxthos 11:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The title should probably be moved to anything else, particularly since (a) It uses the dreaded "L-word" that causes a cataplectic reaction and, worse, (b) Wikipedia is one of the few places where articles can be found in abundance about mythical trolls. Once one gets past the title, however, it's about patent disputes. Author admits there's room for improvement, which is a nice change from the usual author attitude... improve, don't delete. Mandsford 14:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreasonable as a List of ambulance chasers or a List of closeted homosexuals. Unlikely to be salvageable with move to NPOV title (List of alleged patent trolls, etc). Eleland 16:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV, original research, potentially libellous. Compare to a hypothetical "List of price gougers" or "List of environment-destroying companies." You can remove problematic material from articles, you don't have to spin it off. Gazpacho 20:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with patent trolls. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please don't merge with the Patent Trolls article. That would only acerbate the POV issue. If merging/deleting, it is best to select any examples that are well sourced and important, and put them in as a section in an article article about famous patent disputes. The problem is that the patent troll article describes a neologism, and it gets a lot more POV if the article actually states that specific companies meet the definition of that neologism. Wikidemo 07:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as inherently POV. The patent troll article covers the concept, which is enough; we don't need this. TomTheHand 19:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes-Benz SLS McLaren[edit]

No verifiable sourcing on an article about a car "rumored" to be released in 2008 or 2010 and full of "insider" speculation. Was tagged as a questionable notability article since June. Creating by SPA in June, 2007. No further improvement. 24 UNIQUE Google hits.] This includes Wikipedia and mirrors. Not verifiable and WP:CRYSTAL Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources supporting the elements, so I guess it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe some content can be mentionned in the Mercedes-Benz article (or maybe the F1 town although I think it is mentionned that it would be used for the F1 otherwise, unless sources supports the elements I say delete.--JForget 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by speedy keep vote by nom. Non-admin closure--JForget 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X Television[edit]

Reads like an advertisement. The company and product appear very notable however. Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject seems notable, as pointed out by the nom, but the article may need to be rewritten.--Danaman5 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needing a rewrite isn't grounds for deletion. --Fabrictramp 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Retract Nom - More of a mis-google on my part. The numerous keeps made me check out the company further. This television network is very notable in the extreme sports market and as such should not be deleted. I will add this to my pile of complete rewrite. For now just leave it and the advert tag. --Skywolf ^talk/_contribs 17:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. --JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Devourment[edit]

Contested speedy. Band badly fails WP:BAND. Not signed to a recognized label, no references other than their own website and Myspace (remember, WP:YMINAR). Suspected WP:COI. Realkyhick 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~For some reason, the article is showing the link to this debate as a redlink for me. Anyone know what the problem is?~~ J Milburn 20:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC) (Fixed itself.) J Milburn 14:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedily deleted per A7. Also, they have a couple of albums which need to meet the same fate. faithless (^speak) 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Believe me, I tried the speedy route. Please speedy the albums too. Realkyhick 08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The band shouldn't be deleted. They are fairly well known and are important in their sub-genre. They have over 5000 listeners on last.fm and are considered to be one of the fist bands to play 'Slam Death Metal'.Also there are much smaller bands on this site on unknown labels as well that haven't been proposed for deletion. But i'll admit that the article needs improving Bloodredchaos 08:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping an article. (This is a recording.) Realkyhick 16:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The band is notable. I mentioned the influence that they have on their genre. It's not like I added some bedroom myspace project. The band is actually well known in the metal community. Most brutal death metal fans have probably at least heard of them. They've been reviewed by many websites and are one of the most well known bands in their subgenre (slam death metal). They also have two full lengths and have toured and played festivals with notable bands. I don't understand why they fail in notability. Bloodredchaos 09:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nice article on Rockdetector already linked from our article, and a couple of passing mentions on the very reliable Decibel Magazine which seem to back up how influential the band is. There are thousands of reviews out there in other places too. A Google search for Devourment review brutal turns up a sackload of reliable reviews of their various albums- four here, one here, two here (but the site seems a little slow...) another, another, one on a horribly formatted site describing them as having a 'cult' status, an article describing one of their albums as 'one of the best regarded brutal death metal albums' and so on. Oh, and I've heard of them. They're notable. J Milburn 14:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On another note, I am working on a complete rewrite of this article in one of my sandboxes. J Milburn 14:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has argued that the article should be deleted because we've never heard of them. I argued that it should be speedied because the article does not assert the band's notability (it still doesn't). Aside from that, it only cites one source, and that's one that I just added. faithless (^speak) 15:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, yes, I didn't mean to imply that anyone has suggested that, it was a comment that appealed to my own sense of humour. The reference you have provided, combined with the external links, provide enough potential sources to assert notability. In this case, external links is additionally being used as a holding area for sources before their content is integrated into the article, or information already in the article is attributed to them. There is absolutely no way I would speedy this, personally. The article does assert the notability of the subject by providing these sources. J Milburn 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has existed for several years, and it appears the only reason it's being nominated for deletion now is that a 'recent deaths' listing for Wayne Krupp has led the typical "I don't know anything about this and I've never heard about it, so I want it deleted" crowd into nominating it for deletion. I also disagree with the vague 'assertion of notability' comment above. The article suggests that this band invented a sub-genre of music; that is an assertion of notability. Perhaps the article needs pruning, but don't cut down the whole tree.Ryoung122 11:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It seems that the WP:OR people comlained about has been excised, so what remains is the issue of whether or not this is a suitable encyclopedia topic. There is no consensus on that point, so I consider the debate to not have a clear outcome there. However, I note that this article is sort of weird compared to how things are done for other shows: it is part background, part plot summary, and part a list of characters. I note that Yes, Minister does not seem to have a "list of characters" article, and that that might be the best thing to do with this one. But that isn't a result enforced by consensus, just my own suggestion. Mango juice^talk 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Ministry[edit]

Relies heavily on an in-universe perspective; email correspondence is original research. Not convinced there is anything valuable or encyclopaedic here. Marwood 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... as valid as any other article linked to List of fictional governments ... "in-universe" perspective of Yes Minister is totally appropriate in this context. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That list is for government bodies, which in this case is the British Government and not fictional. A better comparison would be perhaps "the Bartlett Administration" from The West Wing, which doesn't have its own article (despite being arguably more notable). Thomjakobsen 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. In-universe perspectives should not be used for Wikipedia articles. I'm as big a fan of Yes, Minister as the next person; but this article really isn't appropriate. Marwood 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I have reconsidered (based on reminders by Some Other Editors), and I am changing my opinion to Merge (without the OR), which appears to be the growing consensus ... it's worth keeping some of it, but not in its own article. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs)

Keep I agree that the email correspondance is OR, but I think the article is sound. I think it'd be better to send it back and get the relevent areas improved, rather than delete. Theone00 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not inherited and no real world notability established for this fictional ministry Corpx 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Some of the information in this article could be merged with the Yes, Prime Minister article such as the information from Jonathan Lynn. The Ministry is of relatively little consequence as I recall that both Yes, Prime Minister and Yes, Minister was based on the interplay between Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey Appleby and Bernard Woolley and the Ministers were generally mentioned only in passing. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the information from Lynn is one of the major problems with the article! Until this correspondence is published elsewhere, its appearance here on Wikipedia is original research. Marwood 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yes, Prime Minister. No need for a seperate article. - fchd 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate article and well-written. -- Thefreemarket 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the author of this article, I created it to parallel the existing "Ministry" pages that exist for legitimate Prime Ministers (e.g. Thatcher Ministry), and though I admit it has limited scope, it serves to expand the knowledge of fans of YM by delving into the depths of the series, by using the books. There is also an existing category of fictional governments, which this article falls under quite nicely. If the email correspondence is the chief bone of contention, I shall be more than happy to delete it. If the article cannot stand on its own, I would be content to see it merged with a currently existing YM page, rather than see it tossed out. LancasterII 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the problem is not only OR in the article, the title is also OR - there is nothing here whch is not either redundant or unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I compiled all of this information from published sources, and removed the information I gained from Mr. Lynn, meaning there is no OR, but only information deduced from available sources like the series and the books. LancasterII 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too in-universe. I don't think that merging some material would enhance the parent article, which has just been promoted to FA. The JPS ^{talk to me} 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep. This page is essentially a extension of the satire of the establishment provided by the show. In mimicking actual "governments", it performs a valuable role in both maintainng the satire and in showing just how clever the series authors were in their construction. Keep this article as is, x-reference to and from the entry on the show, but don't merge this with the show page. It has considerable satirical value as it stands and as such deserves to remain unmolested.Ajm057 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not the place to publish meta-reference articles that "maintain the satire" of your favourite programme. I think the article is wonderful, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Again, in-universe perspectives should not be used for Wikipedia articles. Marwood 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but. I am new to this community, so perhaps I may not understand the ground rules - BUT, with great respect to you, who are you to determine what is and what is not appropriate.Ajm057 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an editor of Wikipedia, just as you are! And your opinion is as valid as mine and everyone elses - which is the point of this discussion process! The article uses original research (or rather used, as it has now been removed) and is written from an in-universe perspective. Both of these things are not appropriate here on Wikipedia (see WP:OR and WP:WAF). The page could be re-written from a real world perspective, but I can't see any establishment of real-world notability, and the article is primarily listcruft anyway. Most (all?) of the content is available on other pages. Anything that isn't can be merged. Marwood 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now the original research has been removed. Reading the article it doesn't seem too "in-universe" at all. the wub "?!" 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a difficult closure, because there was a clear majority to Delete, and several of the Keep !voters had COI issues (or may have been canvassed off-wiki, in some cases) and did not cite valid arguments. However, established users Fosnez and Jreferee provided valid sources to demonstrate notability, and the article is now in a much better state than it was at the start of the AfD; I felt this should be taken into account in the closure. Walton^One 14:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDVision[edit]

Article that essentially reads like a corporate puff piece. Previously speedied for failure to cite any sources and even worse promotional content. Now cites to a Chicago Tribune article, but the article is one of those semi-PR pieces ("Hey, look at all these neat new products") and I don't think it establishes this company's notability per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the primary author of this article. The Tribune article was written by a technology staff writer and the opinions contained are that of the Tribune reporter. The article clearly establishes notability as per WP:CORP as a unique technology. Let's give some time for the stereo 3D user community to edit and show consensus on TDVision which is a major player in this market. Also consider eMagin with the Z800_3DVisor and headplay are stereo companies that have articles though they significantly differ from TDVision 3dtech 03:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Please see today's article on Display Daily about sensio with mention of TDVision http://displaydaily.com/2007/09/05/sensio-squeezes-3d-into-the-existing-video-system/ 3dtech 03:17,[reply]

6 September 2007 (UTC)— 3dtech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - Not notable. The author of the article has obvious COI issues as well. Into The Fray ^T/C 03:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the market has yet to come to a consensus to make the technology a player, then it's not notable. Smashville 03:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The market has already come to a consensus. The article should not be deleted to give other people than me the primary author a chance to edit the article, provide citations and clearly prove notability. 3dtech 03:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either it's notable or it's not. We shouldn't "save" an article so we can make it notable eventually. Smashville 04:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would it help to cite more sources? I added another one from Design News 3dtech 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)— 3dtech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I am the CEO and President of TDVision. It may obviously seem to be a COI, but please, let me explain: The only reason why all the other 3D technologies have not proliferated is because of their lack of compatibility with existing 2D infrastructures. Before 2006, all the efforts towards 3D were just simulations and optically based pseudo stereoscopic technologies by alternating, filtering, polarizing and splitting the image source. Since 2006, TDVision has redefined 3D and is being adopted by several military, aerospace and medical institutions because it has achieved the true compatibility backwards, true emulation and true portability at High Definition rates, there is no other 3D technology offering the same characteristics and this is a radical breakthrough. All those companies prefer TDVision over other 3D technologies because of all the mentioned characteristics. TDVision, by definition, is a completely new 3D platform and this single statement fulfills the requirements of any informative public document. The gamut of products makes the architecture, the hardware and software work together to provide the user a completely new way to perceive 3D digital images and 3D environments. TDVision is not only a display company, is a completely new approach to 3D imaging designed from ground up to solve all the existing problems. It is not corporate babble, it's a fact, it's on the patents, it's on Google, its on the Chicago tribune reviews made by industry analysts, it's on blogs by persons who know the matter and should not be deleted. Instead of marking it for deletion I encourage you to please provide some orientation on how to create a proper wiki document (we have read all the guidelines). Other 3D companies are practically promoting their displays, and that's all they are, a display company. We are not just another display company, and we want to share this definition with the public, people from all over the world will be able to verify this information and make comments to it, but it won't happen if you just vote to delete it. Thanks. TDVSystems 04:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)— TDVSystems (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - since User:TDVSystems has practically admitted in the spiel above that he's trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Gatoclass 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at the article. User:TDVSystems is not an editor of this article. Any person wanting to learn about head mounted displays, the use of LCOS, and 3D stereo standards would be missing out if this article was deleted. TDVision is recognized as unique and highly notable by the US Display Consortium as well as other notable promoters of stereo systems. 3dtech 05:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)— 3dtech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - The CEO describes TDVision as "a completely new 3D platform" which indicates to me that it is yet to actually establish itself in the marketplace. If it had established itself, I doubt the company's CEO would be feeling a need to drop into Wikipedia to promote the product. And if it is yet to establish itself, how can it be called notable? As for its alleged innovative qualities, every other business out there is flogging something it alleges to be groundbreaking or innovative in some way or another. And as for people "missing out" if this article is deleted, if someone wants to know about TDVision, they can do a google search and check out the company's own website, they don't need to read the same spiel on Wiki. Gatoclass 06:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Though "completely new 3D platform" may indicate to you that TDVision has yet to establish itself in the marketplace, this is not so. TDVision has been around since 2004. This is a long time when talking about the industry TDVision is in. Anybody could also do a google search on any topic in wikipedia though many prefer to use this wiki to get information. 3dtech 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find the article uninformative about either the company or the technology. The CEO's statement above was far more informative and interesting (but clearly COI). An article about 3D display technology would be more useful than this, and in such an article TDVision deserves a mention, but I am not convinced it deserves its own article. Promotional articles of other companies should also be deleted; the fact that they exist is not a reason to keep this article. As to the CEO's final statement "we want to share this with the public" -- Wikipedia is not the venue for that purpose. You, Mr CEO, are free to put the information and a discussion forum on your own web site. Go and do that. -Amatulic 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Again it should be noted that User:TDVSystems is not the author of this article. This article does not read like a promotional article. It is an informative article. The article mentioned the unique attributes of TDVision systems which is useful and merits its own article. TDVision Systems are different than other 3D display systems. There are now multiple notable citations in the article. 3dtech 05:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC) — 3dtech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  - Non sequitur. Nowhere did I state that TDVision wrote the article. Furthermore, it is far from an informative article; as I wrote earlier, I learned more about the technology from TDVision's statement above than from the article itself. I repeat, Wikipedia is not the venue to showcase this technology. If anything, it deserves a mention in an article about 3D display systems, along with all the references. I still don't see a compelling reason to give this company its own article, especially for the purpose TDVision described (share with the public, etc.).
    - TDVision Systems is not a display system only. Take a look at the article. TDVision Systems' TDVisor is not even a head_mounted_display since it is not mounted on the head. More reasonably it should be called a personal viewer. There are compelling reasons why TDVision deserves it's own article. These include the fact that TDVision is a unique system and technology, substantially different than other 3D display technologies and techniques and is notable in its own field as well as notable worldwide.

3dtech 02:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is notable per non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. However, the article is written as an advertisement. This does not mean it should be deleted - it is simply in need for WP:RESCUE. User:Krator (t c) 08:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of starting over when we have more notability, better sourcing, and something that sounds less like an ad. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The above requirements have been fulfilled. Can you revisit this?

3dtech 05:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Might I point out WP:USERNAME policy while I'm here? Particularly the part about promotional usernames. shoy 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing the words "player" and "market" in close proximity always reminds me of those emails recommending purchase of a certain junk stock before its imminent rise in value (presumably this will occur when you can actually order the product).It seems from the sources quoted that TDVision has the potential to become very notable - if it could just gain some public recognition. I suspect that this article is an attempt to gain precisely that. Wikipedia is not here to promote someone else's new product, no matter how innovative and exciting it may be. We're here to document the excitement - but that seems to be rather thin on the ground right now. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 17:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above commenter does not like the combination of player and market. These are not bad words. Users can order the product currently. That is not the meter of notability. This company is notable because they are taking an approach never done before in the field of stereo 3D and is recognized by notable organizations around the world. Many articles on wikipedia start out on "thin ground" let's keep this article and let it's style improve. 3dtech 23:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was not criticising the product, or the article. I was stating my opinion that notability has not been demonstrated, and that the article seeks to create, rather than document, recognition of the product. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 21:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you are correct that this product is not even on the market yet (as evidenced by the "pre-orders" page), it would seem absurd to claim the product could in any way be notable. Gatoclass 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment:::The product is on the market and can be purchased in any amounts at any time. A pre-order can be just that. A form you fill out before you order in order to receive a quote.

Delete. Advertising, non-notable company. Keb25 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous comment is not substantiated. This article is not advertising. 3dtech 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you say. If it looks like advertising to one editor, he can express that view. I have to say the article looks promotional to me, even if you, as the author, didn't intend it as such. The fact that you seem to have a single-purpose account does make other editors suspect a possible conflict of interest, however. -Amatulic 00:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is it that looks promotional to you? I will remove it immediately. I have one expertise, that's stereo 3D hmd sets. That's why only comment on that category. Let's work together to make this article conform to standards. Many articles in wikipedia may start out in a bad shape but let's not not crush it in its infancy.

3dtech 00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am an analyst for WTRS and did a podcast for TDVision at CES. This company and more importantly the technology is not only valuable but important information to keep available. The original post is from an authentic article so this seems to be a valid contribution. My understanding is TDVision offers a new digital infrastructure that enables true 3D immersion across platforms in a portable form factor for multiple applications. AND it doesn’t fool your brain into thinking it is 3D, it is true 3D. And one can simultaneously switch from 3D to 2D on the same screen, no special equipment... so I say keep this information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennmmca2 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC) — Jenmmca2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. It seems that all of the keep arguments except for one have some serious WP:COI issues. Smashville 13:10, 7 Septe.mber 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep~~Strong Keep article seems to have sources now and is more NPoV (still needs work though) - Fosnez 14:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-written the article to make it more NPoV. I have also indicated where citations are required. Fosnez 10:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have changed my vote to strong keep as the article now satisfies the citation requirements. Fosnez 13:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, Google News archive results in a few countries and some searching is enough for me to think the company could be notable, but is probably not yet because their technology hasnt been picked up and used in any large scale. Also this article is primary about the technology rather than the company; information regarding technology belong on topical articles rather than company bios. John Vandenberg 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - It should be noted that mass adoption of 3D technology has not happened yet as a whole. It is expected to happen and TDVision is notable for assembling all the pieces of technology needed for this. That being said, TDVision adoption rates are considerable and notable.

3dtech 03:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete while there is some buzz, I dont' see the company pick an eye of serious analysts in the industry. The available buzz may well be generated by good PR. `'Míkka 21:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment I have added three more external links to serious analysts in the industry and relevant articles asserting high notability. 3dtech 23:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of those so-called "references" doesn't load on my PC. Of the other two, one mentions a demonstration of the product being made at a conference, and another is from a corporate website that lists TDVision (amongst a gaggle of other companies) as a "technology partner". As an investor in the stock market, I am only too well aware how utterly worthless many of these "technology partner" agreements turn out to be. So if anything, these purported "references" only strengthen my opinion that this is not a notable product. That may change in time, but it seems very clear this technology is very new and has yet to establish itself in the marketplace as a successful product. Gatoclass 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - TDVision is integrated into the Northrop Grumman Rainstorm Precision Targeting System. Air Force and Military around the world use this tool. All links in the article load and show on Iceweasel 2.0.0.6 on a standard Debian install. The company was founded in 2001 as per the article. The technology is not brand new. The technology as already established itself in the stereoscopic 3D community as highly notable. It may seem simple but the only way to properly view 3D with no side effects is to emulate the way the human eyes really see instead of simulating a 3D effect. That's the major difference emulation vs. simulation. I am an expert on 3D display technology. All added references are from non-trivial, objective, sources and serve to increase, of course, rather than decrease notability. Let's work together to make the article a success.

3dtech 03:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TDVision is integrated into the Northrop Grumman Rainstorm Precision Targeting System

Where does it say that? The Rainstorm ref only says TDVision is giving a "demonstration" of its technology. Gatoclass 04:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the link under section 'New Features & Enhancements' "TDVisor support A wearable 3D device called a TDVisor is now a supported stereo viewing device." 3dtech 04:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but just adding "support" for a particular device hardly establishes notability. It just means that Northrop have recognized that some buyers might want to use this device and so they've added support for it. It doesn't demonstrate that anyone has actually chosen the device for use with their system. Gatoclass 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We probably won't hear from the military aparatus of various governments on their procurement rates for the TDVisor for use with Rainstorm as that sort of thing is usually a secret. As you said "Northrop have recognized that some buyers might want to use this device and so they've added support for it" This in itself is notable. Could this reference, the fact that the technology is not new, and the complete article rewrite, tag for rescue and multiple citations sway you to a keep User:GatoClass?

3dtech 04:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not. Companies often add software support for new technologies because it costs little to do so and is a means of keeping their own product up-to-date. But a lot of this support turns out to be redundant as the supported technology ends up failing in the marketplace. Which for all we know at this stage, may soon be the fate of TDVision. Gatoclass 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Catch 22 As TDVision has been established as notable by NGC as a military source. It shouldn't be required to collect disclosures of various military buyers of TDVisor adoption rates. 3dtech 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 19:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:N, WP:COI. Avruch 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From one of the external links: "Will TDVision's technology help 3D video finally take off? It's one of the necessary things needed to move 3D forward, but it's not enough to get us all the way there." And that's a reference supporting notability? That's from CNet.com. I find the notbility totally lacking. A mention in the media is not notability, nor a successful sale. Ilike my spam fried, not posted. MarkBul 20:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mentioning that TDVision is an important part of moving 3D as a whole forward into mass adoption is highly notable. This article is not spam and should be kept just like headplay and Z800_3DVisor have articles.

3dtech 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an ad for a NN company. Marcus22 20:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - The article clearly defines a unique approach to 3D that is notable in and of itself.

3dtech 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added another link to a gizmowatch.com piece that was posted 11 hours ago.
- - Comment I added a German article that is translated to English to external links. 3dtech

3dtech 01:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:N. [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these so-called references establish notability. WP:ORG states that notability cannot be established by "Press releases [or] advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group". What you have posted here as refs are no more than company press releases and third party coverage of the product at tech shows, which again are venues which clearly fall under the heading of "advertising for the company".

WP:ORG goes on to state that when determining notability of a company, users should take into account "notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The "demonstrable effects" of TDVision on any of the fields in question appear to be zero. In which case this article fails WP:N in both letter and spirit. Gatoclass 04:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Demonstration of product capability and the coverage of technology capabilities in any venue do not fall under the category of advertising. Professionals write about what they see in an objective manner based on their knowledge and expertise. These are reliable sources and clearly show notability. If a reviewer thought a product or company was trivial or insignificant they would say so. They have not. The move towards an immersive, portable stereo medium that revisualizes the way society as a whole percieves entertainment, athletics, economics, history, literature, science, and education is highly notable. It can be compared to the development of the color television. It is changing the world and nothing can be the same after. Resistance to change is not the meter of notability.

3dtech 04:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are reliable sources and clearly show notability

I disagree. WP:ORG clearly states that notability cannot be established by press releases or advertising. Trade shows are clearly advertising venues, it's the job of trade publications to cover product demonstrations at such shows but such coverage alone cannot be used to establish notability. If that is to be the standard used for notability, then every product displayed at every trade show in history that's been covered by a trade publication would qualify as notabile, which is absurd. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory for every product good bad or indifferent that's been demonstrated at a trade show.

- "Trade shows are clearly advertising venues" I disagree. This is probably not the place to argue what a trade show is and is not. In any event wikipedia explains a Trade_show as "an exhibition organised so that companies in a specific industry can showcase and demonstrate their new products and services." Wikipedia explains Advertising as "paid, one-way communication through a medium in which the sponsor is identified and the message is controlled by the sponsor." Naturally it is evident that this is not the case with TDVision. TDVision did not control what any reporter said. TDVision did not sponsor any of the articles. And trade shows are not there for one-way communication. 3dtech 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ORG guideline suggests that the product should have established a "notable and demonstrable effect...on culture, society, entertainment" etc., which TDVision, a new product which is not even fully available yet, has obviously not had a chance to do. Gatoclass 10:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - TDVision is not a single product, it's a set of technology tools, products and systems. They are all available. 3dtech 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, what those "reporter[s] said" were not exactly ringing endorsements either. One said TDVision's technology is "not enough" to make 3D video "take off". Another said the technology embodies "the best and worst" of 3D and "made us sick" (ie motion sickness). A third said there was "visible flicker" with the product which the company said it was working on. So even if product reviews from trade shows were to be taken as evidence of notability in themselves - a highly dubious notion - there is nothing exceptional about TDVision's reviews in particular that indicate notability in any case. Gatoclass 05:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course TDVision's technology is "not enough" to make 3D video take off. Content providers are a big part too! The "Made us sick part" was a comment about a virtual roller coaster. The idea being that the experience was so real that the user was sick like on a roller coaster. And it's evident that some people perceive flicker over 85 hertz even. This article and this technology is highly notable and even a cursory glance at the reviews show them to be laudatory. 3dtech 05:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where are the content providers? And if there aren't any yet, what does that say about the company's notability? Gatoclass 07:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added five more external links to notable reference to TDVision. I have also noted a citation of another notable and demonstrable effect on history and education. 3dtech 05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bunch of posts (again often generated from trade show demos) on non-notable blogs and public forums. Gatoclass 10:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Those sources were notable enough to be used as sources for other articles or merit their own. The following are just some of sources I've used that have been sourced as notable for other articles or have their own. Also included are articles that no one can argue are non-notable that use the same sources. Tropical_Storm_Gert_(2005) Heise Boss_Film_Studios CNET Design_News Pcmag Northrop_Grumman linutop 3dtech 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting really tired of having to refute 3DTech's increasingly lame attempts to justify this article. The current vote is 12 for delete as opposed to 6 for keep, and of those six, three have obvious COI's, two of those three (User:Jennmmca2 and User:TDVSystems) have accumulated exactly one edit apiece on Wikipedia (their vote on this AFD), and the third is a single user account who authored the article in question. Of the three keep votes that are not COI's, at least one is a self-confessed inclusionist (a philosophy which is essentially at odds with Wikipedia policies). If one discounts only the COI's the vote is 4:1 for deletion, even if they are included it's still a two thirds majority. Surely it's time this AFD was closed? Gatoclass 03:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia:Etiquette should be observed. I created this article in good faith as an expert in 3D Vision systems. This article is very well sourced and provided numerous links of notability. The article has been flagged for rescue, re-written by editors and has a lot more notable links than comparable articles that have less substance. Users that want information on LCOS displays, 3D encoding, stereo virtual worlds, and the only all-digital stereo technology in the world would miss this article. I vote to keep the article.

3dtech 05:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- RIGHT! Allow me to pick your post apart with the contempt that it just deserves. Wikipedia is not a Democracy - it may come as a surprise to you, but the number of "votes" mean precisely a tinker's cuss in an AfD. An AfD is about Consensus, and the above comments are not tallied up at the end of the AfD by the Admin. The Afd is read through by the admin and they come to a decision based upon the arguments, this is why we have a list of arguments to avoid and why we have "no consensus" results from AfD. One valid keep comment can overrule 50 invalid delete arguments (as alot of the above are). To paraphrase Jimmy Wales's quote, Wikipedia's goal is to become to sum of all human knowledge. To that end, it is Deletionism rather than Inclusionism, that is against the spirit Wikipedia's goals. Inclusionism may sometimes be in conflict with some of Wikipedia's policies, but thats why we have policy like this. Toyama Maru, Yoshida Maru, Awa Maru, Arisan Maru, Ural Maru (pages you have created) all contain only one reference. Wikipedia:Notability says that articles should have Significant coverage by Reliable Sources, that are Independent of the subject. Should we be nominating your articles for deletion? or Ignore the Rules on this one? Fosnez 07:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contempt? Naughty boy, breach of WP:CIV.

Those articles I created are only stubs, and they are in a long established pre-existing category, to wit World War II merchant ships of Japan. There are also other refs available, I referred to that one alone because it's the most accessible and the others do not add more information. You might say I had an attack of exclusionism :)

As for my comments about inclusionism - I simply noted in reading the article in question that inclusionism implicitly rejects the WP:N guideline, which would thus seem to render arguments based on inclusionism regarding content disputes, essentially illegitimate.

Not that you based your arguments here on such, but I did think your inclusionist position was worth noting on the grounds that it might reasonably be assumed to influence your position in an AFD debate. Note however that I didn't call for your vote to be ignored on that basis. Given that inclusionism implicitly rejects WP:N however, it certainly seemed a relevant matter to raise.

In regards to consensus v vote, it was my understanding that AFD debates are one of the few venues on Wiki where votes are taken into account, although not solely or exclusively. Anyhow, that was just an expression of my perplexity and frustration that this AFD is still ongoing after what, ten days now? But I'm sure the closing admin will ignore my comments if they are out of line.

As for the arguments themselves, naturally I'm still of the view that the "deletionists" here have the best ones, but basically I wish this page would just go away and stop sucking up my time, because I'd prefer to be spending my Wikitime on something a little more useful. Gatoclass 08:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I spoke a bit harshly, you struck a nerve (that inclusionism is some type of insult). Leaving that behind us, My understanding was that (in a perfect world, with no personal bias) AfDs are read by th admin, the arguments for keep/delete are compared (with comments takin into account) and they make a decision. Fosnez 09:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is in a long established pre-existing category, to wit Stereoscopy. What I don't get is why a million links need to be added to help establish notability even though the first two links were highly notable. We now have loads and we are still debating? Does someone have an agenda? This article is notable! 3dtech 13:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 14:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Touch[edit]

WP:NEO, dictionary definition, and lack of incoming [22] links precluding teh encyclopedic value of this article.--ZayZayEM 01:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a neologism that has become widely adopted, with over 12000 Google News Archive results and 100 current results. The respected Double-Tongued Dictionary has an entry with citations dating back to the 1980s. This is a term recognizable to anyone in any type of marketing or service industry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But can it be expanded beyond a dictionary definition?--ZayZayEM 07:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition. Lurker (said · done) 10:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Eusebeus 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd say merge into Megatrends, but that page doesn't exist, strangely. Pinball22 17:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. MarkBul 20:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. Term exists on its own now as evidenced by a quick google search, and is not generally associated with the book in which it was coined. It's a real business phenomenon, not just a word needing to be defined. Many articles on this. The article is a stub that needs expanding with what "high touch" is - the business / marketing practice, not the word, the history, how that relates to computerization, etc. But stubbiness isn't grounds for deletion. The underlying notability question is whether this is something that people should know about, and the answer is yes. Wikidemo 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep In my line of business people use the term in many different ways and there is no clear definition. Clearly, this is a term that will evolve over time and it would be interesting to note its evolution - especially as the world gets more and more wired. It could come to mean the kind of service you get in starbucks (in fact - high touch is what makes starbucks popular, not the bean) It is intended that the article grow as usage of the term evolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savio2net (talk • contribs) 08:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, WP:NOT a dictionary. — mark ✎ 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial murder[edit]

No sources. Also makes a trivial connection between unrelated events. Chick Bowen 18:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, OR. Corvus cornix 18:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ~~Also, violates WP:NPOV.~~ (maybe not). --Evb-wiki 19:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and WP:OR. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR. Wawawaaaaan. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced and OR.--Danaman5 19:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. No sources, original research and violates WP:SYNTH. --SGT Tex 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen and heard the term used many times by opponents of the death penalty. Lack of references is not a reason to delete - get some references. MarkBul 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just added three references - many more are available. MarkBul 20:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor, POV-pushing neologism does not add anything to understanding the subject of capital punishment. Wikidemo 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources do not establish notability. The first three merely use the term as a title, which proves nothing other than that the phrase is a used as a title. The last one, a 1901 source, discusses events of those times and does not appear to draw any broader point relevant to the justice system today.Wikidemo 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment With respect, you seem to be confused. POV does not refer to the definition or use of the term - it refers to the tone of a Wikipedia article. Many terms are used with a point of view, not all Wikipedia articles using the terms are POV in Wikipedia terms. "Merely" using a term in a title is even more confused - what more do you want for a referece for a term that finding it in book titles and articles by an important social commentator of late 20th century America? And a 1901 book is expected to discuss the issue in terms of 2007? This is not a neologism - it has clearly been used for over 100 years consistantly. MarkBul 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused but perhaps I was too brief. Neologisms make weak articles to begin with. Partisan terms that merely rename something so it sounds bad (or euphemistically good) are particularly pointless. This is one of those. Indeed, a term appearing in a headline or title is not a reliable source that the thing described actually exists, or that it's a common term. People coin clever titles all the time to be different, not to be the same. One use proves nothing. To count up how many articles use the term would bey SYN/OR. Just not a good source, particularly if the article body never uses the term. I'm not sure if and where that appears in a guideline but I know I've come across this point around Wikipedia. A similar concern on Template:Afc_neo. I see no 100 years of consecutive use. I see two sources around 1900 and two sources today. Indeed, those old sources do not establish that the word has currency today, and any reference about the state of capital punishment 100 years ago in America has very little bearing on the state of capital punishment today.Wikidemo 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sources suggest that the term merits Wikitionary inclusion or something to that effect. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least transwiki; this term may not be in common use now, but it was used quite often - I found a lot of appropriate Google Books hits[23]. --Gwern (contribs) 22:11 14 September 2007 (GMT)
- Where do you think this original research should be transwikied to? Corvus cornix 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary has been suggested. --Gwern (contribs) 23:00 14 September 2007 (GMT)

Why would Wiktionary take original research? I think you want Urban Dictionary. Corvus cornix 04:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Capital Punishment Debate. If you but this in Wiktionary, you better be ready to do the same for many pages linked to the Capital Punishment page. This isn't a dictionary term like "hammer" or "thirsty". It is a term with a history within one of the most contentious issues of our time. And this is not original research - I already added references. You are welcome to add a few on your own. If you refuse to even try to look for references or rewrite the article, then you aren't contributing here. IDONTLIKEIT does not contribute to consensus. MarkBul 23:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator. I would ask those defending the article to address whether the various usages of the term are indeed consistent. If not, then there is no encyclopedic subject here, only a long-standing term with a shifting definition, written up here with an expressly political purpose. Chick Bowen 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be potential for an article on this, but it must have some connection with the actual uses of the term--the Schiavo advocates are using it in a deliberately misleading sense, and the present article is hopeless POV. Best to start over. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Schiavo advocates are using it as a logical extention of its use regarding capital punishment. They use it as an extention of government-adjudicated death. Both terms are used as advocacy, just as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are used by advocates of those positions. That's why I said merge it into Capital pusishment debate. The term is used in that debate. Both sides of the debate are POV, so they go on a balanced page of the issue MarkBul 00:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hopelessly and intrinsically subjective. Gives legitimacy to provocative terminology on which there is no consensus. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unconnected Listcruft with a POV. Violates WP:NEO, WP:LIST, WP:N, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Bearian 17:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently POV, a libel powderkeg. Keep in mind that the BLP policy exists precisely because an article accused its subject of being involved in a murder. Gazpacho 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Judicial murder" is a real term, but refers to the show trials of Milada Horáková, Heliodor Píka, and the like; the article should primarily deal with these events. As the article stands, it is a disjoint list based on Special:Whatlinkshere/Judicial murder. - Mike Rosoft 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing here that isn't rightly covered by another topic. Dlabtot 02:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Outcome looks quite obvious and the arguments for deletion looks weak compared to the keep arguments. Non-admin closure--JForget 23:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi punk[edit]

A Nazi punk is a neo-nazi who is a part of punk subculture. Or so I read in Wikipedia, not that I needed an encyclopaedia to tell me something quite that obvious, and in any case I didn't believe it because as a seasoned Wikipedia hand I know full well that articles with no references are not always to be trusted. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a real article about a real subculture to me. I see plenty of references, just not in citation format. By the reasoning that obvious subjects should not be treated in wikipedia we would have to get rid of fork, knife, and spoon. Wikidemo 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real subculture. Semi-notable. 82.165.187.34 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what the rationale for deletion here is, but this most definitely is a real and notable subculture. faithless (^speak) 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no legitimate reason to delete this article. Spylab 23:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm pretty puzzled about the rationale here as well, since there certainly seems to be a large collection of references and other things like that. Additionally, the article explains that the appearance of Nazi Punks (as against the original sort) on the punk scene was a notable event, since it seems to have been referred to in songs and spawned a new "front" in the traditional clashes between far-Right ideologies and others. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have any clue why someone would want to delete this article. How much evidence is required before a subculture can be acknowledged by wikipedia? It provides bands, history and various different sources. Why more is wanted?! User:El Chivi
Delete per nom. Unsourced article that provides no basis for this neologism. Eusebeus 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly "unsourced". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a doubt, keep it. Admittedly, it is tough to get information on Nazi punk music, as indeed it is a dark corner and a subculture within a subculture. But it definitely should stay, as many WP labels distribute NS punk music. Plus the article has plenty of references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groar! (talk • contribs) 02:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of this article's references are just confirming that individual bands are Nazis, and almost all of them are to unreliable/primary sources like http://www.aryanunity.com/memoirs8.html or whatever. At the risk of being an asshole, it's a good idea to actually look at what's being cited, rather than just assuming the article is cool because it has lots of references.P4k 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Phaedriel - 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Protocol[edit]

Wikipedia appears to be the primary reference on the Internet for this; Wikipedia, mirrors and hate sites account for most of the 79 unique Google hits. Nothing in Google News, and my Factiva search didn't turn up anything either. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No one else seems to've cared, and the article doesn't list any consequences of this agreement. --Gwern (contribs) 22:13 14 September 2007 (GMT)

Comment The point of the agreement is to not have any consequences — it's all about keeping these racists out of the news media. CWC 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've worked on the article in the past. It seemed more important then but, as Gwern points out, it hasn't drawn any comment or reaction in the intervening years. Some of the info can be merged to David Duke. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. has all the notability of a deal struck in a prison laundry room. I see nothing reporting the outcome and effects of the 'treaty'. ThuranX 00:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It did get some coverage by the SPLC ([24], [25]) and similar organizations[26], and it seems to important amongst the non-blatantly-deranged Racist Right in (at least) the U.S. and Canada. Quite a few racist organizations have signed up to it.
I say that Wikipedia should cover it. Keeping the article would be my first choice.
OTOH, it appears to be fairly closely tied to David Duke (eg., [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=1502526] Duke advocating it], some odious blogger claiming that it's just Duke's way of covering up his past), so moving it into David Duke as a new section would be my second choice. CWC 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. Eusebeus 13:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Dlabtot 02:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Alan Taipale[edit]

Non-notable filmmaker whose work is self-produced via a vanity video publishing firm. Corvus cornix 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. If we accept an article about this guy, we'll have to accept articles about every kid who ever posted a video to YouTube or shot "footage" with a cellphone. Qworty 19:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree with Qworty - not a good precedent and not warranted in this case. Marcus22 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia and its mirrors are the only relevant google hits. Not notable. --SGT Tex 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough independent coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 22:13 14 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete -- I can't find anything independent suggesting notability, I agree with the nomination. Accounting4Taste 06:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As a side point, I'm unsure why someone added the {{afdanons}} template, as there were no anonymous IPs or suspicious SPAs participating in the discussion; all of those participating were established users. Walton^One 14:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Canada for Us[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Short-lived (less than six months) white nationalist group. Notability is not inherited, the links to prominent neo-nazis does not compensate for the lack of independent sources or evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not an "independent source?" CTV is not an, "independent source?" AnnieHall 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It was founded in "early 2004. The WCFU was formally dissolved on May 11, 2004, . . . ." That can't be but a few days more than four months. --Evb-wiki 18:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does the amount of time an organization existed have to do with anything? When Nicolas II was deposed the provisional government lasted only a few months. Does the provisional government not warrant mention because it didn't last long (note that I'm NOT saying that the Kerensky government is as important as a neo-nazi group in Alberta -- it's obviously far more significant -- but to say that the time frame should dictate importance is ridiculous)? AnnieHall 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of the many sources mention the group by name. Longevity does not confer notability, nor does the lack of it make a group non-notable. The group meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG by having multiple 3rd party mentions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:ORG#Primary criteria: "A company, corporation, organization, . . . is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. . . . The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. . . . Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." WCFU was not the subject of any of the sources. Merely trivially mentioned. From WP:ORG#Non-commercial organizations: "The organization’s longevity . . . or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." --Evb-wiki 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:ORG#Primary criteria also says, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." I think that the multiple sources indicate notability. While longevity may be considered, it is not a determinant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I believe the group has been the subject of articles. For example, "Edmonton man fined for hate-propaganda site", The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Dec 2, 2006. AnnieHall has added more sources to the article as well. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to that, references 5 and 6 are focused specifically on the WCFU. AnnieHall 05:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get the distinct impression that, having failed to achieve notability at the time, the WCFU are trying to achieve it through Wikipedia now... Marcus22 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article and I am most decidedly NOT a member or supporter of the WCFU. This group was publicized in major media in Canada (CBC and CTV, as well as a national radio programme that interviewed the leader). It meets the criteria for inclusion based on that fact alone. Add to that the leader and founder's arrest as a result of his activities with the WCFU. AnnieHall 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, please refrain from being abusive to people on their talk pages. Marcus22 09:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive? How in the world was I being abusive? This is what I posted: I wrote the article in question and I do not appreciate your speculation regarding its inclusion as an article on Wikipedia. That you think it should be deleted is fine (though I don't at all agree) and we could agree to disagree but please do not make the claim (implicit) about me that you did: "having failed to achieve notability at the time, the WCFU are trying to achieve it through Wikipedia now." I consider this to be insulting so I would ask that you please refrain from jumping to conclusions concerning the motivation of editors. Thank you in advance. AnnieHall 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC) What part of that was abusive? I just want you to afford me the courtesy and assume good faith as I would you. AnnieHall 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know when, if you lean over your neighbours fence, and start shouting at them, you are being abusive? Well, when you do the same thing on a talk page - it's still being abusive. In this case you saw what you thought was implicit in what I said. You could have asked me if I had meant it. In a nice way. And in a nice way, I could have said no, I did not mean to imply that. (For I did not). Instead of which you hung over the fence and ranted at me. That's abusive. OK? Marcus22 16:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a rant and given how I interpreted what you posted (and I'm not sure others wouldn't make a similar asumption based upon what was written) I think I was being nice. Be that as it may I'll accept that you did not intend to cause offense. Thank you for that. AnnieHall 02:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, please also note that your canvassing activity in reference to this article is a violation of the AfD rules. --Evb-wiki 14:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't canvassing. I did not ask anyone to vote a specific way. I simply asked if I could get their input on this issue, much like Guy when he contacted me to let me know he had nominated the article for deletion. AnnieHall 16:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a pretty part of history, but the fact that a hate group was forced into folding up so quickly is the notability in this case. Well referenced + plenty of notable linked articles. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously per WP:ORG. Eusebeus 13:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP All of the many sources mention the group by name. Longevity does not confer notability, nor does the lack of it make a group non-notable. The group meets the notability requirements in WP:ORG by having multiple 3rd party mentions. It was one of the more active and open white supremacist groups in Canada in recent history, and the events which led to its downfall had a ripple effect on the movement in Canada in general. Frank Pais 14:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One point: It looks like the article will probably be kept, as there is sufficient support for it. But could anyone who has had their view canvassed on this subject please do the decent thing and withdraw any vote they may have made? Thankyou. Marcus22 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe the organization was quickly disbanded, but there were, and still are, racists who get together with dreams of "taking back" something that they think of as "their country". You don't suppose that all of those white supremacists decided to become more tolerant of diversity after their leader was arrested, do you? I'd say that the Alberta Provincial Police are still waiting for this U-boat to resurface. Mandsford 14:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that their website was shut down for hate makes it notable to those interested in the topics of Canadian Law, Hate, the internet, speech, politics, ect. Wiki is not paper. --Mista-X 19:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for an article. CJCurrie 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A short-lived (and unpleasant) group, but a clearly notable one in my view, given that they were fined (and may be prosecuted) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for breaking human rights laws. The references attest to the fact that they have been the subject of multiple independent news sources. Terraxos 16:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Nomination withdrawn without delete opinion. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 15:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Takida[edit]

Comment I have added an article on an album by this band ...Make You Breathe to this AFD. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete both~~ There are no sources in the articles and a brief web search doesn't turn up anything that indicates the group meets WP:BAND. If the band doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, the album doesn't either. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should do more then a brief web search since they are a really big band in Sweden. The do meet WP:MUSIC And they are signed on Ninetone Records /Universal Music (http://www.takida.se/main_theband.htm) wich is a pretty big label. The Illusional Ministry 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Seeing the links you posted on the talk pages of the two articles, I've struck out my recommendation. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per editor's sourcing, I am withdrawing this Afd. Sorry, since I couldn't read Swedish, none of the links I found were helpful. You might want to follow up on the Swedish and Finnish pages, too. - CobaltBlueTony 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Spruill[edit]

I am reluctant to propose persons from history for deletion, but this one just fails WP:BIO. The article consists of exactly one sentence, cites exactly one source, which contains - well, exactly this sentence about the person. Wait, there's one more. At his (Dr. Godfrey Spruill's) death the Roundabout fell to his son Samuel Spruill and then to his grandson Joseph Spruill. Should we call the article a copyright violation, or a stub without any potential to grow? -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would someone in this position today be considered notable? If so, this should be kept. J Milburn 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The issue is the WP:N of this individual, not hypothetical other individuals in the (now-nonexistent) position today. Delete per WP:N. Avruch 19:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, someone in this position today would be considered notable per WP:BIO, which includes among its criteria "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures". This person was a member of the North Carolina legislature in the 1750s, when it was a colonial legislature. The fact that he lived so long ago may make it difficult to find additional sources about him, but the fact that he served in political office implies that additional sources probably exist. --Metropolitan90 19:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan. One must be consistent - a latter-day personage in that position would be an obvious subject for an article, so a more antique personage also merits it. --Gwern (contribs) 22:14 14 September 2007 (GMT)
Keep Notability is permanent. No reason why the article could not be expanded--there are almost always printed sources for people of this sort. If the Notability WikiProject does not recognize the basic principle that notability is permanent and the basic criteria of WP:BIO, perhaps its existence should be reconsidered. DGG (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Metropolitan, DGG. Edward321 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small Town America: Fairport Harbor, Ohio[edit]

Self-released video with no claims of notability. Not listed at imdb, released by CustomFlix, which is a vanity video publishing arm of amazon.com. Corvus cornix 17:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Taipale AfD. --Gwern (contribs) 22:15 14 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete: per nom. Watchingthevitalsigns 11:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep without prejudice to whether or not this should be redirected to farmer's market, which requires further discussion (prob on the article's talkpage). WjBscribe 02:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public market[edit]

This is a short no-context or dic-def article with the potential to be a simple business directory listing. WP is not Yellow Pages and just about every town has a public market - with bigger cities having several. B1atv 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to farmer's market to avoid COI of future contributors who "add their own" --Keeper76 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or delete without prejudice - it's a valid topic for an article, but there's no point in having an unmaintained one liner that contains more advertising than content. --B 19:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Keeper76 WP:NOT a directory, list of indiscriminate info, link farm. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree that farmer's market is a much better known term. --SGT Tex 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a short article about a notable subject but so what? Nothing advertising or yellow pages about it. Wikidemo 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains good information. Public Markets are not synonymous with public markets. A disambiguation link could be added to the farmers market page if there is a concern about confusion. That being said some information needs to be added to the top differentating public markets from farmers markets or at least providing some overview of the topic so it's not just a directory.--Rtphokie 15:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't think this should be redirected to Farmers' Markets as the two are not the same. There is no reason why an article on Street Markets couldn't be written but this isn't it - and lack of a decent article is no reason to keep a poor article. This discussion has alerted me to the "lists of farmers markets" articles - I don't think they should exist either; but I will await the result of consensus on this article prior to nominating those for deletion. B1atv 15:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a public market is different from a farmer's market, the article just needs some work.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Christopher Allen Tanner is correct. Famer's markets are different than public markets. Both are encyclopedic topics. --Oakshade 01:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Crowley[edit]

Non-notable traffic reporter, fails WP:BIO, no independent, reliable sources avaliable, prod removed by a likely WP:SPA, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 17:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Vanity, non-notable person.--Endless Dan 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Keeper76 18:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only non-notable, the author shaved ten years off her age ... Accounting4Taste 18:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She claims she's only 37 but admits she was born in 1960. What else isn't she telling us? And besides, even those traffic guys in Phoenix who crashed their helicopters together and died didn't get their own articles. All this woman does is sit in the studio with a big traffic map behind her head--she doesn't even blow-dry her own hair! Qworty 20:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Sanriku Japan Earthquake[edit]

Minor earthquake, there are thousands a year, created this article when I was a n00b, should have known better. WP:NOT news, prod removed Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple examples of independent coverage. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwern (talk • contribs) [reply]
- All minor earthquakes get significant coverage, but only for a day until all was forgotten, wikipedia is not news Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep either as it is or rename and expand the subject to earthquakes in the Sanriku area, for which it's a great start. Fg2 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. —Fg2 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete From the article: "The earthquake was centered in the Pacific Ocean about 330 miles east-northeast of Tokyo about 24 miles below the surface. There were no immediate reports of casualties." Should we have an article about every tremor that causes no damage and no casualties? The author of this one felt compelled to add a list of notable earthquakes, not as "a great start" (as Fg2 suggests), but more like sensing (correctly) that this quake was of little interest. The article, not surprisingly, was created on November 15, 2005, when it was "breaking news". Nearly two years later, it's no longer earthshaking. Mandsford 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Although a significant earthquake, it is not enough for an individual article (like not every Indonesia earthquake over 7 and even 8) have articles not to mention nobody was killed. It can be covered in Japan-related articles though.JForget 23:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because well-referenced earthquake. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it well-referenced, most of the references talk about the area history, which could be merged to an article about Earthquakes in Japan this one is too minor for an article and not much in references, having references isn't a reason for keeping an article Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gwern. However, I would also support expanding the article to chronicle significant earthquakes in the Sanriku area which are not significant enough to have their own articles should it be determined that this one is not notable enough by itself. With that in mind, any earthquake with a magnitude of 6.9 is significant and notable. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's alot of major earthquakes every year, not really notable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've reworked the material into an article on seismic activity in the region. Given a new title, it would make a good start for an article on that new topic. Old versions remain available if preferred. Fg2 02:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Keep now but what title will be sutable for the article, also I prefer a general article on Earthquakes in Japan than one region. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WjBscribe 02:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Pimpin' with Jonny McGovern[edit]

A podcast. Unusually for a podcats article, it is drawn entirely from personal observations and lacks any independent sources. Oh, OK, so that's not actually unusual. It's hard to establish the significance of a free podcast, and to my eye this doesn't even try that hard. Guy (Help!) 16:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What are the notability requirements for podcasts, television shows, or radio shows? What makes this podcast any different from Rising Damp? Just curious. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources, for one thing. See WP:WEB. Corvus cornix 18:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm not going to argue WP:OTHERSTUFF, but... we do have a ton of television shows with no reliable sources whatsoever. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 22:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least until they change it to Gay Pimpin with GEORGE McGovern. Qworty 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete Merge with Jonny McGovern and then delete seperate article in question. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's already on Jonny McGovern, although a general section for it leaving out a lot of content. If the content from this article in question can be expounded on more at Jonny McGovern, then it should be and this article in question deleted. Otherwise, KEEP -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After thinking about it more, it's taken a life of its own and deserves its own article. Just way too much stuff to be merged to Jonny McGovern. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 09:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable unless reliable sources establishing notability are given. Nuttah68 13:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I've added several sources to help establish notability. As it's podcast, and a gay one at that, I fully expect coverage to be mainly focused within the podcasting communities that embrace openly gay issues which generally falls outside mainstream and print coverage. If I come across some others i'll try to add them as well. Benjiboi 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources exist, including this IN Magazine feature story (link added to article). More will undoubtedly emerge as McGovern and the show continue to grow in popularity and notability. Otto4711 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been reading about this guy for years so there are reliable sources out there but it will certainly take work to find them. I considered merging option and don't see it as a good option as there is so much relevant to this show that wouldn't be appropriate on his bio - we'd quickly say time to start an article anyway. This simply needs to be improved through regular editing. Benjiboi 15:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - established notability with ~~Nuttah68~~ Otto4711's ref. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With whose ref!? Otto4711 17:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements by User:SatyrTN et al. to meet the WP:HEY standard. Bearian 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 18:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean car makers[edit]

Nothing but a very short list of internal links, and has received little attention in the last two years. As a navigational aid it is redundant to both Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of South Korea and Template:Korean automobile industry. PC78 16:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletions. —PC78 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Korean automobile industry. --Metropolitan90 19:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or categorize, as suggested above. This could have been a good article, but can you imagine if an article about American car manufacturers simply said "1. General Motors 2. Ford 3. Chrysler"? By no means is this a keeper. Mandsford 14:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City Golf[edit]

Golf course fails WP:N; no independent sources have been cited. PROD was contested in February. While the article is not an advertisement, it just fails the notability criteria. (Also, not directly referring to guidelines, it seems that reviewing every average golf course or other sports facility is clearly out of scope for an encyclopedia.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To me, this doesn't meet WP:CORP, and no other notability guideline, actually. There are wikis for this sort of local business, but those wikis are not Wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 22:17 14 September 2007 (GMT)
Delete Not notable in its present form however you look at it, and doubtful there are the sources required to make an article worthy of Wikipedia. Nuttah68 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This just reads like an advertisement of a non-notable golf course to me Thurls 11:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Anchorking[edit]

Delete.Non-notable person, just 233 Google hits. Was nominated for speedy but the author contested it. Mushroom (Talk) 16:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Vanity, non-notable person. --Endless Dan 16:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispam, fails WP:BIO. Precious Roy 16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:VANITY, etc. The list goes on and on. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bio, vanity, etc. per above. --Lockley 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable bio, not on a radio station, vandilism. -- Denzillacey 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aria (guitar company).--JodyB_{Roll, Tide, Roll} 01:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Pro II[edit]

Product line (guitars) fails WP:CORP; no independent sources cited. It's unclear why these products are notable independent of the company; and even the notability of the company is unclear to me. PROD was contested per comment on the talk page. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to company's article, creating it if need be. Things will be clearer there. --Gwern (contribs) 22:18 14 September 2007 (GMT)
- But there's no clear evidence that the company is notable, either. --B. Wolterding 17:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The list, if reformatted appears useful. Set with the company's site, it would probably be good. Mbisanz 02:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aria (guitar company). Not clear to me that the list of guitars has to be included in toto; there could be ways of summarizing it. Certainly the present article is bigger than the one on the company and the latter can use some of the text from here. I didn't spend much time thinking about notability of the company itself, but I suspect it would pass. They do after all make copies of famous American guitars, and staying in business for so long suggests that their products must be well received in some quarters. Third-party commentary on their products would be a welcome addition. EdJohnston 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang[edit]

No assertion of notability, other than his family connections. No evidence that he has ever made a first-team appearance for any of the three clubs he has been with. PeeJay 15:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to have played in a fully-professional league (WP:BIO). Number 5 7 16:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a youth player, he did well in youth games, not a reason to keep him yet. Matthew_hk t c 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A youth team player who has not yet played in a fully professional league per WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 22:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Milani[edit]

This person is not notable by Wikipedia standards. w^L^{<speak·check>} 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. I would also argue WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources. A lotta purty pics. This article has been deleted a ridiculous amount of times and recreated by the subject almost every time.--Sethacus 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (and wouldn't pass WP:PORNBIO either). Since this is its seventh deletion, I strongly suggest Salting it as well. No reason to waste additional time on it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for failure to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N and for recreations of the article after deletion. Edison 16:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only notable thing about this article is the first reference: "Picture of large cleavage." Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a legs and butt man I vote delete as there are no legs and butts anywhere in this article... oh yes, she's totally non-notable too (other than how she manages to stop falling on her face) --WebHamster 17:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to vote against her, given the fact that she's only 27 and already has two very large achievements. And I hasten to add that those achievements would be notable in any condominium parking lot in this country. Since she is an immigrant to the United States, perhaps her notability could be established if anybody has a video of her trying to get through the turnstiles at U.S. Customs. Then again, maybe that's a streeeeeetch. Qworty 19:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From what I can tell, she doesn't fall under WP:PORNBIO, but irregardless there's no evidence of notability in the article. But just to be safe, I've listed this AFD in the WP:P* deletion alerts. Tabercil 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prod was removed on basis of size of fan club but WP:BIG isn't a basis for notability. Canuckle 02:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From this link, it seems she's done an interview for Czech television, although this doesn't count as independant coverage. Epbr123 15:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Sebi _[talk] 23:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Fails to make a clear assertion of notability per WP:BIO. If she does something notable down the road, we can reconsider then. —C.Fred (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have to admit she barely passes the criteria, but the fact that the article has been recreated 7 times should indicate that people find her interesting. I first saw her on the Sports By Brooks website, where she's been their most popular model for years. I believe the main problem is that she rates a one paragraph "busty model with a big fan club" article, and instead we have a whole page of fluff and vandalism.Disposableman 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open cad format[edit]

We have gcad3d talking about open cad format: http://www.gcad3d.org/opencad.htm CAD community is a little community. We don´t have hight activity. It´s imposible...

gcad3d is the most advanced free CAD software nowadays. We are all free CAD community working... It´s obvious that we aren´t Autodesk, Bentley,...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.109.54 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already speedied three times, and continuously recreated. As this time the article seems to be much larger than earlier, I ask the community to decide once and for all about the notability of the subject. Personally, I strongly doubt about its notability, as it is about a minor free software community which has apparently released no work at all. Angelo 15:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It certainly doesn't seem notable. The first reference is to the Google group of the same name: "Group info: Members: 9 Activity: Low activity" and it might be confused with the "Open CAD Format Council" of Japan [27]. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:SOFT. --Gwern (contribs) 22:55 14 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GB3BS[edit]

Non-notable radio repeater, unsourced. --Finngall ^talk 15:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:RS and WP:V. Not even a single source provided. Yeesh. --Gwern (contribs) 22:56 14 September 2007 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Semmens[edit]

BLP with no reliable sources cited and no particular claim to encyclopedicity. A cursory Google search reveals nothing that would sustain this biography. PROD contested. FCYTravis 15:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No notability, no sources, no verifiability. Possible hoax. AFAIK Bowie's only connection to Persons Unknown is wearing their outfits onstage and extolling their virtues on his website.--Sethacus 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Sethacus. --Fabrictramp 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notability regardless of the job in Sealand. Extra kudos to the nominator for having the courage to use a word like "encyclopedicity" :) --WebHamster 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think this guy has spread himself too thin. He's a weapons specialist, a "partner" to David Bowie, and a banker for a micronation. Perhaps if he were to focus on one of his varied interests, and give all of his energies to that, he would finally rise to notability. Or perhaps he could combine his tremendous talents and become the Bowie-boy who's in charge of financing special weapons. They call them the Diamond Dogs! Qworty 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with WebHamster, plus if you look up "Sealand", it's a "micro-country" that's like a bizarre analogue of vanity publishing -- population approximately 10, and asserted to belong to the UK. Probably more people read this entry than there are citizens. Accounting4Taste 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Doom. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 23:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPISPOPD[edit]

An acronym used 15 years ago on a video game message board. Shouldn't warrant it's own article. }} Endless Dan 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: WP:NOTE#Notability is not temporary. I'd say both idSoftware and Doom have achived notability, and saying "a video game message board" is diminutive (usenet was the centralized discussion place back in the day). If anything, merge into Doom. Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just stopping by on the way to other commitments, since it does need to be stressed further that USENET was the primary online communications channel for something like 1981-1994, and should not be treated as a fan message board in the future. --Kizor 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Fan message boards are far more important. Recury 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the time they weren't, there were none! Usenet and IRC was it. --WebHamster 19:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is notable and sourced. Although related to Doom there's enough non-Doom related material in it to warrant it's own article. Part of the lore of something that was extremely big at the time (especially for those who remember the Infant2 server!). --WebHamster 17:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doom or id Software. If it is really part of the lore then mention it there. Article is almost contentless, but is padded with the "hey, this was mentioned here" type of prose that makes parts of Wikipedia unreadable. A sentence or two in one of those articles is plenty sufficient. Recury 19:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Recury --Endless Dan 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as game trivia. I remember this but I can't imagine opening an encyclopedia and finding an article about it. Gazpacho 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can now :) ---- WebHamster 19:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. —Emanuele Saiu 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doom. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Doom or id. This does not warrant an independent article. Girolamo Savonarola 23:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Lack of reliable third-party commentary means that WP:WEB is not satisfied, so this does not reasonably deserve its own article. The subject may deserve two or three sentences in our Doom article. There is no claim that this joke inspired the name of the band Smashing Pumpkins, which if it were true would certainly improve the notability of the joke. EdJohnston 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

thanks, I had to use google cache to view this page. What harm was it doing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.221.232 (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. I would have closed as a merge and redirect, but Dhartung correctly points out that all sourced, verifiable information on the topic is already covered at Desinicization campaign. Walton^One 14:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desinicize[edit]

I was drawn to the desinicization campaign article because its long term edit war by new and unregistered users kept showing up at WikiRage.com. After reviewing the matter with others, it was concluded that the edit war largely was because the article was composed of original research, unreferenced, POV material. I protected the article, rewrote the article using only reliable source material, and post that material to the article. The purpose was to get that edit war under control and make the disputes around that topic manageable by others. A new editor's post of the old version was redirected back to Desinicization campaign. Desinicize is a POV content fork using the old, unreferenced version that generated the edit war. Desinicize should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 14:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please allow this AfD to stay open at least through 14:59, 19 September 2007 (five days from nomination). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to desinicization campaign. What desinicize actually means is necessarily subjective, while a desinicization campaign can be documented. Regardless, we only need one article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guy just wants to force other people to accept his point of view. he deleted almost everything in the original article. he should change his article to "taiwan's desinicization campaign." desinize has been around for centuries, he obviously doesn't know history. And "campaign" is a wrong word to use. --Qpiuqwe 22:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it back in. Recipe for problems, having separate articles. --Gwern (contribs) 22:58 14 September 2007 (GMT)

here is no need to "merge," that guy simply created a new article, and delete the entire content from "desinicization", and wants to force others to accept his own creation. if you search on google, you can only find ONE PAGE with his creation "desinicization campaign." you can find more than 10 pages if you search for the word "desinicization." so clearly, that was invented by him only. Everyone else around the world don't agree with that phrase. he should change his own article to "Taiwan's d campaign," And revert the original "desinicization" back to its original content. it is just that simple. --Qpiuqwe 05:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All the usable (WP:RS) information in Desinicize already is contained in desinicization campaign. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, anything you wrote is "usable informaiton," anything that you don't like is not "usable." you clearly don't understand this word stands for, and you don't under the history of this thing at all. forcing other people to accept your view is just wrong. before you wrote that campaign article, many people have contributed to the original article which has been forced to merge by no one else, but you.--Qpiuqwe 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source information is usable. Original research information is not. A number of people - significantly more than those who contributed to this article - developed these policies/guidelines. If you feel that these policies/guidelines are not allowing you to contribute to Wikipedia in the way you like, please discuss that at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). However, edit wars to by pass established policy/guidelines are not the way to go. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alister Donkin[edit]

Firstly, the article was supposed to say that this person was one of the founding members of Powderfinger. Lately, it was realised that this person could be a hoax. Some users including myself have researched about this, and there is nothing in the internet that convinces us that this Alister even exists. Currently, the article is filled with rubbish - nobody has bothered to fix it. Thus, I nominate the article for deletion. RaNdOm26 14:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax - Fosnez 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Poorly written bullshit.--Sethacus 16:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Random and Fosnez' research. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Sebi _[talk] 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. GlassCobra 01:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jasbond![edit]

Contested prod. Supposed musical that the host venue has never heard of and has never been reviewed. Hoax. Nuttah68 13:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are found, I looked but can't find any! Fosnez 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This certainly smells like a hoax, and there's no evidence to the contrary (especially not on Google). -- Kicking222 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, guys. It's on Wikipedia, [28] so it must be true. Delete! --Evb-wiki 15:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, no indication of notability, no sources. NawlinWiki 15:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX, WP:RS, WP:N. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a hoax, but not notable, either.--Sethacus 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The WP article is about an alleged "West-End musical". The webpage you cite is for some undefined "personal venture" involving some undefined item that was allegedly handed down to someone through generations. I think they are both hoaxes. --Evb-wiki 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Eek! You're right.Looks like both are hoaxes, in all probability by the same person.--Sethacus 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I haven't seen this show but my father has, he tells me it hasn't recieved the critical recognition it deserves. I have uploaded an image of the poster he bought after the show. Bean8000 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC) — Bean8000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I'm not changing my vote. But, looking at that poster, I see two names that pop out--Julie Grant and Al Paige. Both were minor UK celebrities in the 60s. Grant was a singer, best known for touring in support of larger acts. She had 3 minor hits in the UK. Paige was what today would be called a stand-up comedian. Some of the names on the poster and the acts associated with them were active only during the 50's and 60's. This matches with the style of poster. I say, now, not a hoax, but can't possibly be verified substantially or, even still, given the acts, be considered notable.--Sethacus 20:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article claims the project is current. More likely a hoaxer with photoshop. Nuttah68 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A very good possibility. Someone who didn't count on a pop culture maven being on AfD. :) The poster is definitely from the early 60's, as Grant didn't do much after, and also per the phrase "Decca recording artist", but talking about a "current show" as the article suggests. I also found a song from the early 60's called "Can You Forgive Me?" by Karl Denver and his trio. I'm guessing those would be the gentlemen in the upper right Jasbond box with the words "their big new hit 'Can You Forgive Me'" A thorough hoax.--Sethacus 00:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Angelo 23:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic F.C. season 2000-01[edit]

contested prod; I still don't see any notability here whatsoever and no potential. Why can't this info be in the article on the team? Postcard Cathy 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information that is relevant in the long term should be included in the team article; but I don't see why this level of detail (one article per club and season) would be relevant for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a news archive. --B. Wolterding 17:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Horrible article, but it certainly passes the general notability guideline, which says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Celtic is one of the most famous clubs in the world, I'm sure there are sources to be had. faithless (^speak) 21:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 22:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Desperately needs a massive cleanup, but it passes the notability guideline. However, if it is not improved soon, I can see it getting deleted in the future. - PeeJay 22:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- Inclusion on Wikipedia is based on notability and not the quality of the article as it stand. In terms of notability, Celtic F.C. is an internationally well known football club with wide coverage. Any particular season receives equally wide coverage to satisfy notability, nevermind the one where they took the treble.
- We have high precedent of articles of this format - at least around 250 for football clubs.
- We have high precedent of season-by-season articles for professional sports teams in general, see Category:Current sports events just for those from the current season.
- We have discussed this before already, the consensus haven't changed from 1 month ago.
- Note - as the one who contested the prod., I would have appreciated if I were informed when this were placed on AFD, as I'm sure the creator of the article would too when this was prod'd & AFD'd.

-- KTC 00:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am doing a little work on this. Notability is asserted - this was a season in which Celtic won a domestic treble, a significant achievement - and there are already eight references to confirm faithless' point about there being sources to be had (and the season hasn't begun yet...). --Malcolmxl5 00:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment We now have a substantial, well referenced article that can now be worked on further. I suggest a keep and speedy close to this nomination. Thanks. --Malcolmxl5 08:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Malcolm has done some really good work on this article so far, I think this AfD can go ahead and be closed now. faithless (^speak) 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, there's been a lot of work done on this, but do we need an individual article about each season of each major professional sports team in history? Not only are there articles about the other Celtic F.C. seasons (2001-02, 2002-03, etc) there are articles about how 2000-01 went for the Boston Celtics and the New England Patriots and the Detroit Red Wings, etc etc. I think that if we saw how many teams have this type of article about their season, and realize how many more are added with each new season, we would be horrified. Great research, sure, but is Wikipedia supposed to host every such project? Mandsford 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm sorry, but what exactly is your rationale for deletion? The subject of the article is notable and verifiable. Why shouldn't it be included in Wikipedia? faithless (^speak) 14:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If the topic is deem notable enough for inclusion, which by all those examples you yourself cited it does, and is verifiable with reliable sources, which by all the references added by Malcolm it does, then yes, we should have it. KTC 17:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I recognize that Wikipedia has a lower set of standards when it comes to sports and television, but I stand by my opinion. Sure, Celtic F.C. and other pro sports teams are entitled to their own articles, written and edited by their fans. On the other hand, I believe that Wikipedia is NOT the place to have voluminous articles about each season for each professional sports team that has fans who like Wikipedia. Where do you draw the line? If you have no problem with an article about a team's 2000-01 season, would the "it's not a paper encylopedia" or "it's verifiable" or "it's notable" argument apply to individual articles about each of the games played during that season? Sports and TV fans are spoiled, and they have this expectation that they are entitled to have endless information about their favorite entertainment. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but it isn't a stack of magazines either. Mandsford 13:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You need to point out how the article fails Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines rather than express your personal view on what should or should not be included in Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' No, I need to get a colon exam on a regular basis. And I can express my personal view on what should or should not be included in Wikipedia anytime I want to, "Mal". But thanks for the suggestion. Maybe you can visit your jolly olde sports pub and suggest to the biggest, drunkest, guy why he should really be rooting for Celtic. Let me know how it goes, old chap. Mandsford 23:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a charmingly odd and old-fashioned way to express yourself! Of course, you can express your personal view what should or should not be included in Wikipedia but the closing admin is likely to give more weight to those comments that refer to policy and guidelines rather than those that simply express personal opinion... --Malcolmxl5 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although I'm a completely football-illiterate person. My reasoning is that if wikipedia (currently still) allows for individual episodes of television shows, never mind articles for each season of a television show, why can't there be a detailed article for each football season of a club? It's not like this article is a stub, poorly sourced or poorly written. In the absense of other deletion rationales, I don't see why this article should be deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the article as it was when Postcard Cathy placed the AfD[29] and this is as it is now[30] (and there's more to do). --Malcolmxl5 22:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This kind of article is standard practice for sports articles. It provides a level of detail that you cannot provide on a main history of xx article. The Category:English football club seasons as well as Category:Football (soccer) clubs season contains many articles. Your efforts are probably better directed at cleaning up the myriad of categories in that area. The football wikiproject is debating at the moment what content should be included in these articles. It conforms to all policies and guidelines and the nomination has degraded into an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Woodym555 23:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/318, Inc — Caknuck 19:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reptools[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is now a duplicate of an existing AfD (it's bundled in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/318, Inc). DMacks 20:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and cleanup; there was a clear consensus to Keep, but the article really needs rewriting to comply with Wikipedia formatting standards. Walton^One 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Naples Players[edit]

Article about a NN community theatre in Florida. — Music Maker 5376 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUS and WP:ORG. -- Ssilvers 14:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)--[reply]

Edit & Keep I would like to know exactly who makes a determination that we, as an organization, are "Not Notable"? We are one of the top three community theatre organizations in the entire United States, according to theAmerican Association of Community Theatre. We have made appropriate edits today to the article and category to make it not self-promotional and strictly encyclopedic and informational in nature. We are new to Wikipedia, and are learning as we go. We do not want to lose our foothold on our page, and will make whatever edits are necessary to keep the page. We apologize for any misunderstanding. Who is to say the users who marked our page for deletion are qualified to make a judgement that we are "not notable" as an organization and member of the Naples, Florida community? What criteria exists on Wikipedia to determine wether or not a theatrical organization is "notable" or not? There are other community theatre organizations on this site. We may be ignorant of the law at the present time, but if you educate us on it, we will follow it if you tell us what to do. Thank you for your attention, and please allow us to remain active with a page.--Coachman76 19:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Advice. My advice to you is that you start sourcing the heck out of the article right away. Go online and find 73 references for your article. Add them throughout the article with those little numbered footnotes that are so popular around here. Have a look at how other articles format references and then learn to write the formatting code--learn it yourself, don't expect any of the critics around here to help you. Have a look at this reference section in the article about Schwarzenegger: [31]. Pretty impressive, huh? Click the "edit" button for the entire article and see how the references are formatted throughout the text of the article. Then find the 73 references for your organization and pepper them throughout your article to make yourselves look really important. That's what matters around here: Finding dozens of outside sources that will attest to your being more than a pimple on the backside of the entertainment industry. Even if your references are local and tiny, editors around here will start voting for your article with the comment "Waddaya mean!? Delete??? It's got 73 references, dude!" There are college professors around here who have their own articles describing them as "architects" just because in 1975 they designed a layout for public restrooms. Why don't they get deleted? They reference, reference, reference! Now have at it, and good luck. Qworty 20:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but don't let that stop anyone from sourcing and improving the article). 54-year old, professional theater, full season, covered in local news, gets reviews, often wins "best" in SW Florida award. This is not the kind of stuff we should be deleting. Wikidemo 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: They are a community theatre by Coachman's own admission, not professional. — Music Maker 5376 21:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 562 google hits for "The Naples Players" and 10,600 hits for "Naples Players" says it all really. -Toon⁰⁵ 22:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are plenty of references there to support the article. Qworty 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Edit & Drop the "The" by moving the article to Naples Players. Google ignores "the" anyway unless you put the whole thing in quotes. This Floridian says keep it. clariosophic 02:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than enough out there for the article to be properly referenced. Qworty 04:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Reference Thank you all so much for the feedback. This Wiki Newbie appreciates it. I am in the process of citing our references for the article, and will thoroughly and properly reference it. And I will drop the "The" out of our title. Yes, we're a community organization, I've made no secret of that, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. There are other community theatres with pages on Wikipedia. There are local community High Schools throughout the USA, regional universities, references to fast food chains which are only available in certain areas of the country such as White Castle (restaurant) or Del Taco. My point is I've never seen any rule here that says because something is "regional" or exclusive to one part of the country or the world is grounds for disqualifying it for inclusion here. We have been named (and I will cite this) the best live theatre in Southwest Florida four years running by the Naples Daily News. That includes an area that includes "professional" theatres in Fort Myers, and touring venues that host National Tours of Broadway Productions. I don't mean to be boastful, I'm just making the point that we are more than notable and worthy of an article here. I am working on grouping and citing the references as we speak, and should have the article fully referenced in the next day or two. --Coachman76 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A community theatre group that has been around for over 50 years and is this well established is definitely something notable. I've worked with community theatre groups for years, and I can tell you that simply because one has the label of "community theatre" does not mean it isn't notable. I am certain we can find the necessary references. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some articles I created have been the target of overzealous editors on this site. Usually it was them aganst the world as it is here. Anyway community organizations like this one are important and becoming incresingly rare. Such bonding fabrics of our human nature are fading, being replaced with suburban sprawl and big-box retailers. The community of Naples is small but a vibrant enclave of the arts. This theatre group seems to play a large part in that distinction. -Blaze33541 00:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phaedriel - 23:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Birmingham[edit]

Vaguely spammy article on a lifestyle center in Alabama. Mentions the developer way too much, reads like an advertisement. Even if cleaned up, the mall would still fail WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Captain panda 21:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Summit (which is how it should be titled, not "Summit Birmingham") is the second-largest shopping center in metro Birmingham behind Riverchase Galleria. It was one of the first — some say the first, and I'm looking for a source to prove or disprove that — of the open-air lifestyle centers that are now the popular mode for shopping centers, supplanting enclosed malls. The article does need sources, which [http:ww.al.com AL.com] should easily provide. I think the "vaguely spammy" claim is off target. I'm sending this article to the Intensive Care Unit. Realkyhick 17:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more material, including a lawsuit against the center's largest tenant, and several references. Realkyhick 18:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable commerce center and tourist attraction in a major city. Realkyhick has improved the article considerably. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to The Summit (lifestyle center) or something of that effect. It's a notable landmark in Birmingham. Smashville 13:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Starblind Optimale ^Gu 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe Realkyhick's edits refute the original argument for deletion and show the article's notability Helmsb 14:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Freestyle Manual[edit]

There are no in-depth, third party sources to show these mixtapes are notable. There are only trivial sources (a track list) and can never expand beyond a track list. Spellcast 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability guideline for albums. Mixtapes are generally not notable, and this one is no exception. faithless (^speak) 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in the media, and barely a dozen hits in Google. Burzmali 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GDonato. J Milburn 20:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of The AnimeLand characters[edit]

Not really notable and I can't find any external refs. Yngvarr 11:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some kind of hoax or joke. No IMDB hits for "AnimeLand" and the concept (mega-crosover of many cartoon shows from different networks) seems unlikely in the extreme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that "AnimeLand" exists in any notable form. Burzmali 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would prefer to wait and see if the editors of this article can provide solid references. Other lists in WP are created. However, the only reason I would delete this article would be due to lack of references. So, let's give this person a chance. Recommend that we keep the article for a period no less then 30 days from now. Just my $0.02. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Why would we leave a hoax page up for an entire month? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a hoax, it should go. I couldn't find any reference to AnimeLand myself. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 19:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The AnimeLand is a hoax creation of indef-blocked hoaxer User:Danny Daniel. Speedy delete this and block the creator, as it's DD up to his usual tricks again. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GDonato. J Milburn 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking with the Elrics[edit]

Not really notable. I can't find any external refs; altho the Elric's themselves are well-referenced, unless a ref for this particular short is available, I'm going to consider this a hoax based on editors other contributions. Yngvarr 11:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as probable hoax. If a reference can be found, it should be merged into Fullmetal Alchemist, a sentence at most. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, creator is blocked hoaxer User:Danny Daniel. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The AnimeLand characters. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons;

"An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy."

This young man may wish to turn his life around and does not need this to be here. What he did was not earth shattering and ultimately not notable. This is more for a tabloid than what should be serious encyclopedia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk)

Damien French[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The subject has received multiple outside coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, in the two BBC articles linked. A quick glance at Google indicates that he has also been covered by ITV, Sky News, The Sun, The Mirror and the Manchester Evening News. On the other hand, there may be some BLP issues with this article, which would override any notability the subject might have. Because of this, I have decided to move this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion. A ecis^Brievenbus 09:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Received a flurry of coverage for nothing terribly serious. Will fade from public view at a rapid pace. Notability is not temporary, and the media's interest in this person is. Precious Roy 10:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because it may have been a slow news day does not make an event like this notable. It may make it printable, but certainly not encyclopaedic. --WebHamster 10:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not news. --Moonriddengirl 12:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete. A waste of space - not news --Fredrick day 12:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic example of the idea that being in the news for 5 or 10 minutes does not make one a candidate for an encyclopedia biography. FCYTravis 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a news service. J Milburn 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An unremarkable person indeed. --Malcolmxl5 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VERY STRONG KEEP Wikipedians deserve some amusement. 81.132.208.211 12:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I'm not going to get in to wondering why animal cruelty is humourous, liking something, or finding it funny, is not a reason to keep it. We have Wikipedia:Silly Things, anyway. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I find his story very disturbing myself. I hope that somehow his life can turn for the better. Steve Dufour 21:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter how strongly you feel that this article should be kept, never ever change the !votes of others. Doing so is vandalism, and may result in you being blocked from Wikipedia. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest KEEP vote possibleYou don't come across these types of incidents everyday, and given the connection between them I'd say this is more wikipedia-worthy than say this. Ironwants 12:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — Ironwants (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Actually, he *is* notable as he passes the required notability guidelines for people, specifically actors/actresses. This person really doesn't, I'm afraid. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Short-term news item. J Readings 12:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article tells us nothing about the person, just two petty crimes he commited. Non-notable. Steve Dufour 16:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable due to insignificant coverage to pass WP:N, nor would he be notable anyway, really, because of WP:NOT#NEWS. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 21:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nom: because of the above comments and votes, I suggest closing this AFD as delete per WP:SNOW. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEFINITE KEEP a decent NPOV article about a news-worthy gentleman, and of the perfect length. IMO this article should remain in place as it is exactly what wikipedia should be about. Morevisit 17:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIS - Acronym in Sales Contracts meaning "Free In Store" or a delivered Price[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FIS - Acronym in Sales Contracts meaning "Free In Store" or a delivered Price

No proper content, just a dictionary defenition. Would probably fit in better at Wiktionary. The article also has an extremely long title which nobody would ever access directly. Possibly created for the sole purpose of including something in the FIS disambiguation page. Zabadab (Talk) @ 09:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You were correct. FIS was changed to reflect this. It will need to be cleaned up even if this article doesn't get deleted. Turlo Lomon 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a dictionary. Zchris87v 10:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an article but a definition. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki over to Wikitionary, if it not over there already. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 19:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But the title really does say it all. The title is "FIS - Acronym in Sales Contracts meaning "Free In Store" or a delivered Price" and the article says "FIS is an acronym that is used in sales contracts, quotes etc which tells the purchaser that the goods will be delivered to them for no extra cost. It means 'Free In Store'". Duh, can someone explain to me what FIS stands for? Mandsford 14:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 18:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moshpit Tragedy Records[edit]

Apparently non-notable record label. Few claims of notability, trivial references (based on their press releases). Company website has no Alexa rank; while there's a fair amount of Google hits for "Moshpit Tragedy Records", only 79 unique ones among the first 1000 (Google never displays more than 1000 search results). Delete, unless notability is independently established. - Mike Rosoft 07:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: on 15 September the creator made some edits to the article and removed the deletion notice; I am re-adding it now. - Mike Rosoft 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 21:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been updated and now contains scanned review of label's release from magazine, mp3 link in which radio show host speaks about label and free downloads for 36 second segment, entire show and segment are both linked as well as urls. Also quotes from third parties, interview snippets, bands which are recognized by wikipedia and mention the label on their pages, references, etc have all been included. Do you know how long it will take to have the deletion tag removed? Has notability been proven enough? If anything is done improperly please just let me know here. Thank you. Moshpit tragedy 21:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately we still don't have reliable sources (independent from Moshpit Tragedy) for this one. We have blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net that were probably written by the record label itself. Admittedly we also have an mp3 file supposed to contain a radio show episode where they're mentioned, but since the file is more than 50MB, I didn't check it out. Even worse, none of the sources we have tell us much about the record label itself, more about the bands signed to them (or not - an entire paragraph is about a deal that didn't happen). Seems non-notable. The fact that it's massively edited by User:Moshpit tragedy and thus a possible conflict of interest doesn't help. Huon 21:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, there are two links from the radio show. One is a smaller snippet, please have a listen to that one. It will help, as the host says the label is giving away free music and how people can get it. I haven't included any of the label's press releases as an actual reference, only as an outside article for more info for readers. I am just a fan of the label but have done too much work to let it go. The Extinction of Mankind release is high profile, and so was the Eyehategod cancellation, thats why it is noted, it was a talked widely about among metal and punk fans. If it is decided more is still needed please let me know, I know it can be proven because the label's stance on the current record industry and their actions are at the forefront in terms of direction for small labels.Moshpit tragedy 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudic for later recreation. I have reviewed the audio and even so, it is still falling short of what is needed. Basically we need mutiple newpaper articles/tv show segments/National radio show segment/books or other such mentions from reputable, reliable, third-party sources. While I applaud the effort put forth in this article, it does not meet the standards wikipedia has set. Blogs, forum posts, news snippets at blabbermouth.net are not valid sources to base an article on. This is a non-notable label, at this time. --Brian_{(view my history)}/^{(How am I doing?)} 22:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun an article on co-founder Rayny Forster who is a notable singer and was written about in many magazines and other sources. Included there is a link to his old band's label's (Cargo Music) site about the band which mentions him and also a review which mentions his singing style in Heckler magazine which is another reliable source. I am determined to find enough info for this as it is out there. Will add more magazine ads and expand on the founder and his other notable projects. Thanks. Moshpit tragedy 22:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have by now heard the short version of that show, but I remain unconvinced. For example, Google News gives precisely two hits, both from blabbermouth. As for Rayny Forster, I'm not sure whether that very short review makes him notable - compare WP:MUSIC - but this is the wrong place for that discussion anyway. Even if he is, the record label he co-founded need not be so. Until something "high-profile" gets at least some independent news coverage, this label just isn't notable. Huon 22:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. I have been in touch and have received word that there is such news coverage being published very soon and I will link that up immediately. Thanks for your patience with the newbie. Moshpit tragedy 23:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be very notable, no really-known acts are working with this label.--JForget 23:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another reference which has a short writeup for a magazine's website and not a press release. It contains the founders names, and has some of the bands listed here. Also Extinction of Mankind are very well known, they had a split record with Doom, who sold 15,000 copies of one EP ("Police Bastard" number one selling crust record of all time). I am also going to add some more scans from magazine coverage. Moshpit tragedy 15:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have added over 12 reviews of the label's releases from reliable independent news sources. There is more coming. Can we take the deletion notice off?Moshpit tragedy 17:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - concerning process: The Article for Deletion process takes five days (in this case counting from the September 17 relisting), and in the end an admin will have a look, determine consensus (not counting the number of votes, but weighing the reasons given for keeping/deleting), and initiate the appropriate action (either remove the deletion notice or delete the article). So no, we can't yet take the deletion notice off. Concerning your added reviews: I still don't see notability for the record label. Of the reviews I checked out, two didn't even mention that label at all (one claiming the release was "independent"), and but one did more than just mention the name. They may possibly serve as indications for notability of the bands whose music is discussed, but such passing mentions won't make the label notable even if there are thousands of them. By the way, the one non-trivial review was this, which claims to be a blog. I'm not sure whether it really is; blogs usually are not accepted as main sources for articles. Anyway, it already was a reference before it was added among the reviews. Huon 22:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added new Review link, its in Dutch I believe, and roughly translated says something pleasurable about the label for putting out the release. Probably still not enough for you but there is more coming if I can get it up in time. If not I will recreate the account if that is allowed when there is something even more concrete if all this is not enough for you, and I'll leave out all the small link stuff if its of no use anyhow. Thanks to everyone for their time.MetalPunk013 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, an article which has been deleted after a discussion like this one should not be re-created in article space without a very good reason; otherwise, it may be immediately deleted again in accordance with our speedy deletion criteria. If (even after the deletion) you believe Wikipedia should have an article about the recording label, consider creating the page as a draft in a subpage of your user space (such as User:MetalPunk013/draft) first. (When ready, you may notify administrators at admins' noticeboard or otherwise ask the page to be reviewed.) And uploading scanned articles from newspapers etc. will not be particularly helpful, because they probably can't be used on Wikipedia anyway - see the image use and fair use policy. (Instead of uploading them to Wikipedia, you may link to them from the article if they are available online.) Regards, Mike Rosoft 18:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added section about the label's ridiculously limited edition T-shirt for the band Fuck The Facts, a very well known working band on a large label, Relapse Records. Includes quote from bands website and reference. http://ftf.electrocutionerdz.com/index2.htm It is about three quarters of the way down their news section, Dated Jan 1. Also in their links section they call Moshpit Tragedy a "Punk Grind label from Windsor ON" These shirts were of special interest because of the groups status and the fact that only 20 were made. MetalPunk013 14:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Borgward Isabella[edit]

A Google search turns up only Wikipedia mirrors and copies. This vehicle was presumably made by Vehiculos Automotores Mexicanos (VAM), which manufactured American Motors vehicles in Mexico under license. In addition, the products of Borgward, a German manufacturer, were made in Mexico after the company went out of business. Therefore, in theory it's plausible that this vehicle existed. I tried the search terms "VAM borgward isabella" and "rambler borgward isabella", both of which are possible names for this vehicle. But no hits turned up. Delete as unverifiable and borderline non-notable. szyslak 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a car built for one year in one country, even if verifiable, as a "collaborative" between two defunct companies, is not WP worthy. Borgward and AMC sites are sufficient. Keeper76 18:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Delete as a company that even could not survive for more than a year doesn't deserve to separate article on WP. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Travia[edit]

Non-notable and apparently defunct online RPG. Project website has been "closed for renovation" at least since April 2007 (courtesy of Internet archive); Alexa rank over 800.000 and never was less than 100.000. The majority of links in the article no longer work. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, notability isn't temporary, but is there any evidence that the game ever got out of beta? Burzmali 14:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft 12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing really notable about the project. It's one of a multitude of failed RPGs, the project is dead, all refs are either to dead links or to fansites. If anything, the article is unclear on many points ("It ended its open beta in March and will be finally open in summer." - what summer? 2006? 2007?) Yngvarr (t) (c) 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The references provided in the article are not reliable sources, as they are from the developer/publisher of the game. A google search shows it being mentioned a lot, but again, no reliable sources. The closest is an IGN wiki, but then of course, anybody could pop content into it. A Google news search reveals press release type information. There appears to be foreigh language coverage (Japanese), but I can't read it thus the "weak" on the delete. -- Whpq 16:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota Legendary Moments[edit]

Previously proposed for deletion (not by me) with the following comment: "Non-notability of content or of the people creating the content. No sources given. Subject of article is actually advertising for Toyota so any in-depth descriptions could actually be perceived to be WP:SPAM. Same content previously speedied under CSD a7." - Mike Rosoft 08:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN, SPAM and possible copy vio...? Delete. Spawn Man 08:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete There is a part that says these commercials were significant enough to warrent the Daily Sun to write articles and interview the actors involved. Supply links and work on cleaning it up and I could very welll reconsider. Turlo Lomon 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Just because a newspaper interviews a group of people doesn't mean they're notable - It's called a special interest piece, completely different to a front page article. Besides, for all we know, the writer of this article could be making false statements and only saying that they were interviewed in the Daily Sun. Spawn Man 08:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Changing my stance a tad based on your comment. Turlo Lomon 09:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. No different than any of the other 1000s of advertising ideas out there. The whole point of the ads is to garner coverage in whatever media they can. Merely showing up in a newspaper shows that the PR firm responsible are earning their fee. This does not make it notable, it makes it perfectly normal. It could also be argued that by highlighting these ads that WP is endorsing the advertising of Toyotas. --WebHamster 10:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Recurring dreams 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability beyond an unsourced reference to a puff piece associated with the ads, which if genuine could itself have been part of the paid advertising. Euryalus 11:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, advertising. Keb25 13:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's an ad not an article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN - indistinguishable from any other ad campaign. There are some which have an impact on wider society which merit an article, but this ain't one of them. Orderinchaos 01:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This campaign is probably more notable than most, at least in the Australian rules football regions of Australia, it still isn't notable enough for an article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OIC. Twenty Years 14:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Nicholas Perkins (T•C) 00:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Keep !voters failed to address the lack of any assertion of notability, or any third-party sources, in this article. Walton^One 14:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Charter School[edit]

no assertion of notability for multiply mobile sub-level school Chris 06:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. SolidPlaid 09:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are many schools within WP that are stubs. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply-it's not a matter of being a stub, it's a matter of notability, which it has not established. Chris 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - in it's current state, it looks very deletable, but I think it can be rescued with some research. Any attempts made to contact author/contributors? At the risk of sounding ridiculous I think this maybe deserves a shot like many of the other school stubs. Keeper76 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Chris 21:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thinking it might get better is not solid verification of notability. As the article stands, it fails WP:N VanTucky ^Talk 22:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no assertion of notability, and in the current it's pretty much the usual school, so unless there is something exceptionnal about the school, I'm opting for the article to be in the waste basket.--JForget 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and copy-edit and clean up is required. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No citations asserting notability have yet appeared. I suspect that's because the school isn't notable. SolidPlaid 14:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 02:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1), List of Rookie Digimon (Part 2)[edit]

dozens and dozens of minor figures form the Digimon franchise, all drawn directly from primary sources, none of which has any assertion of notability beyond mere existence. This is a level of detail well beyond what's needed for a non-player (i.e. reader of an encyclopaedia) to understand the Digimon franchise, it's into game guide territory. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, on a somewhat procedural note, this is in no way a game guide, and I wish people wouldn't abuse that term. A game guide is a collection of tips or hints, tells you how to do something, and falls under "Wikipedia is not an instruction manual", which has nothing at all to do with why this page is being nominated.
For my actual vote, keep, but reduce to a namelist only. That namelist could then act as an alphabetical index (use sortable tables and you have other options as well), and refer people to other articles for information on the creatures that are important enough that we need to cover them in detail. Or, possibly, to lists divided by season, if the individual Digimon aren't deemed notable enough for their own pages. --tjstrf talk 07:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —tjstrf talk 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this would happen eventually, even though we've been working so hard to clean it up. Oh well. Instead of all that - can we just transwiki it to the digimon wikia? All the notable creatures already have articles, and tjstrf's suggestion is basically just a modification of List of Digimon. But please, please, don't just delete this without salvaging the info.KrytenKoro 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a perfectly sound idea. In fact, that's probably where it should have been all along. If anyone wants to boldly do that, I for one will have no problem with it. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember when these guys all had their own pages, and that probably pre-dates Wikia. I put a fair amount of work into some of them actually. Shiroi Hane 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - exactly the sort of thing that should be getting moved under the revised guidelines. We all keep forgetting that's an option. Doceirias 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - a suitable option. The articles fail WP:FICT, and would be deleted otherwise. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - the best place for this article is on the digimon wiki. I just don't think it is deserving of a place here. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Such level of detail is not needed in a general encyclopedia.GreenSprite 10:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - the best solution. Transwiki all these Digilists, and put an external link at the main article page. Then, do that for all the OTHER cardgame/cartoon cross marketing franchises. ThuranX 06:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki for sure. TMI for here. -- But|seriously|folks 07:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remember when these guys all had their own pages. I put a lot of work into some of them. Shiroi Hane 15:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can blossom again at the Digimon wiki! -- But|seriously|folks 16:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My vote: KEEP, KEEP, KEEP!!! Why not? It clears most things up on the Digimon subject. Rainbow sprinkle 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.8.168 (talk) [reply]
Oh crap, how did I not notice this discussion before? These lists are basically the result of WP:DIGI's mass article reorganization (basically, we wanted to stop having individual articles for Digimon). In the back of my mind, though, I knew that even the lists themselves would likely be too much detail, even trimmed and merged as they are now. At the time I was just happy we didn't have individual articles anymore. But, even though this might upset some of the Digimon editors, it seems now is the time to transwiki. This would basically mean redirecting the articles to keep their history until they can be exported, and even then it will be some more work, since the content form the lists come from individual articles (which need their histories for GFDL reasons) found in Category:Redirects from Digimon. It should also be noted that Digimon that are anime characters have their own articles, and are the only ones that might be found notable, so these lists won't effect that area (a discussion for another page, no doubt) -- Ned Scott 07:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provides necesssary detailss . --Eldarone 10:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I've been trying to recommend trimming this properly, but my efforts were generally reverted, and I just gave up. The condition for keeping the individual articles was that we make a list of them. Circeus 13:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We're transwiking to [digimon.wikia.org], right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KrytenKoro (talk • contribs) 08:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely. There's also Wikimon, which is a bit more developed, but we don't have a clear statement if they're GFDL or not (I think I asked once, but I'll have to look into it). -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did too. Never got an answer. They could use the help as they lost all data somewhere over the summer. Circeus 02:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be a good idea to extend this AfD or move to an RfC type set up for the details of this operation. Given that it will likely effect the other lists as well, it might be a good idea to get some more comments, as well as pre-planning for a transwiki if that is what ends up happening. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metaversalism[edit]

non-notable religion; apparently recently created, few ghits, no sources other than their website. Brianyoumans 05:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in complete agreement with nom. The article's creator has admitted on the talk page that no third-party sources exist yet, and this "religion" was formally founded this very month. Someguy1221 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, NN and WP:MADEUP; utterly useless. I'm a convert though ;). JK. Spawn Man 07:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up in church one day, heh heh.--Alasdair 08:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. According to the links it is a personal philosophy revealed to the world in general in September 2007. Anarchia 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with consideration for the deletion of other articles created by this user. Banno 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cprog[edit]

This article is unnecessary, Aside from the Wikipedia article here, there is only one other site I found that mentions this "Genre", and it is a one page website talking about "Progressive rock" artists using Christian themes and lyrics. "C prog" hardly counts as it's own genre, Even though Neal Morse blatantly sings about, "Praising Jesus" I don't think that makes him a separate genre of Progressive rock. At least put under the artist's genres both Progressive rock and Christian rock, because the genre of Cprog Has too few "True" artists to be mentioned, Just because alot of these band's members are Christians doesn't make them Christian music, Quite frankly, I think they'd be bothered by this forced categorization. Spydrfish 05:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed for the reasons stated above. Plus, this article lacks varification for it's claims. Zanders5k 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is original research. Moreover, a quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this article as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of devices using Bluetooth[edit]

The article is currently far from plausibly listing every device using Bluetooth. Bluetooth is fairly clearly being adopted, and adding every device that uses Bluetooth to this list would be unlikely to be kept up to date — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:NOT a directory of goods or services, per "Wikipedia is not Wikinews", and as impractical to maintain (in agreement with the nominator). Barno 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not maintainable; is not and never will be comprehensive. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reasons given by the nom. "Most cellphones" and "Most Computers" isn't enough to make this indisciminate list notable... Spawn Man 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is hopelessly incomplete and probably impossible to maintain. --Cyrus Andiron 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to categorize every item using blue-tooth--Endless Dan 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, extremely difficult if not impossible to complete and maintain list. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 18:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unmaintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 12:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body Splash[edit]

This wrestling move is not sufficiently notable for its own page. There is already a description of this move in the professional wrestling attacks page under the name Big splash. WikiFew 05:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is impossible to verify the contents of this article from third-party reliable sources. A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Professional wrestling attacks#Big splash. Keresaspa 11:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. faithless (^speak) 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Feld[edit]

Former election candidate for a seat at the Baltimore city council. Feld received 50 votes. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Moreover, it is difficult to verify the contents of this article as well from third-party reliable sources. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is notable only for 1 event. Per WP:BLP1E, the article should either be redirected to the relevant event (which I don't believe exists) or should be deleted outright.--Alasdair 08:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Fabrictramp 16:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I guess that he is a failed candidate for City Council which is virtually a criteria to be phased out of a Wikipedia article, unless someone has found some heavy coverage from him and still.--JForget 22:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carlossuarez46 19:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh eating beetles[edit]

This is a WP:COATRACK article being used to promote a book entitled: Beetles & Bones: Care, Feeding, and Use of Dermestid Beetles by Bud Jillett , see Authorsden.com. Username that created this article is BudJillet, though the reference to the book in the article gives another author name. Violates WP:ADVERT. Suspect the two paragraphs in the article may be copyvio from the book. OfficeGirl 04:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, I was surprised to find out this was actually true. Anyway, while an article on Dermestes maculatus (the beetle in question) would certainly be appreciated, this is not anything of the sort. Someguy1221 05:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it's a copy vio, if not, it's definitely OR - Though the subject is notable, it needs to be on the appropriate taxonomic article page and needs to have much better content. As per nom, this may just be a way to advertise the said book. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a perfectly good subject. Every museum that shows stuffed animals uses them. And science labs still use them. Definitely encyclopedic, if a little creepy. Merge to the Dermestidae article at worst. I'm sure references are out there. MarkBul 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is a perfectly good subject, but the content is almost certainly OR or a Copy Vio and it would add nothing to the main beetle article - Since we already have an article for the flesh eating beetles, there's no point in keeping it unless it's made into a redirect to the mentioned article. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect I was waiting for someone to figure out the name before posting. Dermestidae would be a good target for this. Because of the concerns of possible Copyvio, and no real additional information added, this would be the best solution in my opinion. Turlo Lomon 06:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dermestidae... I think people are likely to search on this term (there's an episode of Dirty Jobs where they're called this), but where they should end up is at the Dermestidae page (I'd like to see the description of their usage by humans expanded in that article, though). Pinball22 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#REDIRECT [[Dermestidae]] ←Ben^B4 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 19:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Noorman van der Dussen[edit]

DELETE Non notable figure in plastic, oral, or craniofacial surgery. No particular accomplishment, academic position, or volume of MEDLINE publications (n=4)to support his status. He has almost no footprint on search engine hits. The fact that he apparently has a thriving tran-sexual cosmetic surgery practice is not the stuff of wiki notability criteria Droliver 04:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Co-authored one article. Gets a bare mention as a practitioner of "facial feminization". No news articles or journal entries. As per nom, nothing spectacular or noteworthy.--Sethacus 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with reason "CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material" by Philippe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 05:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comeupins[edit]

This is a hoax. Clever, but there's no such thing. It's not about the flag, so I didn't think speedy criteria applied. But maybe WP:SNOW will come in to play. OfficeGirl 03:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as copyright violation of http://wjbaird.lkdsb.net/history.htm. --JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W.J. Baird Public School[edit]

Non-notable middle school, unsourced. --Finngall ^talk 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't assert notability, is OR and ~~is obviously a COI~~ (Mistaken, but now I see that the article's a copy vio). Delete... Spawn Man 05:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly the author has an interest in the school, but what is the conflict? — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - From COI: "...Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, his family members, employer, associates, or his business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest..." - I thought the person was obviously associated with the school in question if they knew that two of the principal's paintings hang in the foyer - However, I looked at the website linked to and noticed that there was the text "In 1916, Mr. Baird became the Blenheim postmaster and remained in this position until his retirement. He was also an artist and two of his paintings are displayed in the front foyer". My apologies, but my concerns were well founded. Now I can add copy vio to the list. ;) Spawn Man 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:COI doesn't really require that editors be unassociated with the topics they work with. I have a personal interest in my high school, but that interest doesn't conflict with Wikipedia's integrity (or so I would hope). — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - very small school, little significance. — xDanielx ^T/_C 05:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article also has copy vios from here. Spawn Man 06:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright violation per Spawn Man--JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 11:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ZTO (song)[edit]

A non notable song that fails WP:MUSIC ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 03:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following tracks from the album for the same reason as above. Non of these songs are notable or were released as a single. I believe the creator of the articles was planning on explaining the part of the plot that each song covers, but this can probably just be done on the album's article page. The relevant parts of By Your Command and Don't Know Why (Devin Townsend song), since they are the only ones with content, can be merged with the album's article, and all the articles made redirects to it.

Can I add the template to the bundle of articles or do I need to nominate it for it's own TfD? That template being: Template:Ziltoid --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 05:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Non-notable album tracks. Not even worth turning into redirects, people are more likely to search for the album first. Crazysuit 03:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Articles don't assert notability and provide no extra information that couldn't be added to the main album article. Spawn Man 05:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fail Wikipedia notablility criteria for songs.Anarchia 22:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Nothing good will come of letting this disaster of a deletion discussion continue. If anyone wishes to renominate this article who does not have a serious COI problem with the subject, can do so at any time. Mr.Z-man 18:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Wider[edit]

"KEEP"   Notable and most worthy. . He both produced award winning   films  and literally changed legislation on breast cancer care.
             The only question to Wikepedia's validity  are these kind of attacks to delete for no justification. This is important and worthy 
           info on this guy--- period. attack something else like the war not film award winners, and this doctor that (my aunt benefited from this) 
             changed legislation so women are eligible for insurance for breast cancer surgery. For that alone he is worthy. Period.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GWBridge (talk • contribs) 14:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Lack of notability and fails WP:BIO criteria for inclusion as either a physician or entertainment figure of note. Secondary sources, which can be used to support wikipedia inclusion, are "trivial" as described in biography guidelines. While you can find an internet "footprint" on google, it's just not very deep. Not being familiar with the subject, this clearly appears mostly a vanity entry that serves to add to the floatsum. Anyone disagree? Droliver 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletefor now, unless sources for the film fest awards can be found. As a surgeon, he gets one quote, reprinted ad nauseum in a number of newspapers because he happened to be working triage on 9/11.--Sethacus 17:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do not agree. There is ample supporting material on IMDB, on the tribeca film site, on the woodstock film site, on the vienna film festival site, on a myriad of other film sites, etc., etc. etc. for my work. In addition, the films were reviewed in multiple newspapers, variety magazine, etc. The last film won the tribeca film festival. Other films appeared on msnbc, pbs, etc. This is an attempt by Dr. Oliver, who is a pompous ass and whom is maquerading as an expert on plastic surgery, to interfere with this site. See comments on Breast Reconstruction for support of this. He refuses to acknowledge Janet Franquet, a patient of mine, who helped lobby for efforts to get federal legislation passed to force women with breast cancer to get insurance coverage for breast reconstruction. However, Dr. Oliver is now the world's authority on plastic surgery. Sorry, he is not. There are multiple references in the media to what I am doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the above comment is evidence that it is a vanity article. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. The contributor also began the entry on the film Beyond Conviction in which he features. Anarchia 22:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-KEEP--- TWO OF THE DIRECTORS HE WORKED WITH (GIBNEY AND SPURLOCK) WERE ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEES. HIS LAST DOCUMENTARY WON THE TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.196.234 (talk • contribs) September 15,2007

Comment Notability isn't inherited. I worked as an extra on a Brad Dourif movie. Does that make me notable? As for the TFF, source it.--Sethacus 01:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It seems clear from the article that the notability claimed is as a film producer , and the remainder is not relevant to notability. (.The ed. who wrote it and the one who nominated it seem to have equal and opposing COI. ) As three at least of the films seem to have won awards, I think that is enough for notabilityDGG (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP From General Priniciples of Notability in WK, under film section: "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3] The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]"

1. To date his films have won such awards as: Tribeca Film Festival, Woodstock Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, PASS Award from National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Asian American Film Festival, International Arizona Film Festival; including best documentary at several festivals:

http://www.tribecafilmfestival.org/tff-aj-2007-awards.html http://www.woodstockfilmfestival.com/press/releases/2006_awards-release.htm http://www.slamdance.com/press/press_release.asp?article_id=556 http://www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pdf/pass_winners_2007 http://www.asianamericanfilmfestival.org/public_documents/2007_wrap_release.pdf

2. To date, his films have been reviewed in multiple, national publications including, Washington Post, Variety, NY Times, Emanuel Levy, etc.:

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933528.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/26/AR2007042601569.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6623791.stm http://www.emanuellevy.com/article.php?articleID=2741 http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/357760/Beyond-Conviction/overview http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117931082.html?categoryid=31&cs=1&p=0

3. To date, his films have been screened at numerous film festivals including: Tribeca Film Festival, Silverdocs, Woodstock Film Festival, LA Film Festival, Leeds Film Festival, Vienna Film Festival, Slamdance Film Festival, Asian American Film Festival, IFP Independent Independents at Lincoln center, Arizona Film Festival, etc

He clearly makes it on several of the inclusion criteria listed above. Of interest, the one who nominated this article for deletion, this "Droliver", has links to a blog that he advertises his services on-conflict of interest on his part

I think the quote above,"notability isn't inherited" captures this debate well. If you look at the wikipedia biography guidelines for notability as I understand it, just because you have yourself attached for something like production credits to film projects doesn't make you (as a producer) notable unless there are other secondary sources focusing on the producer as an individual. As far as I could tell from google searches, there just is no internet footprint for Dr. Wider in that context. I have no issues with subject personally as is implied, I've been pretty consistant on trying to limit the bloat of entries on individuals in my field. As a physician, it's clear Dr. Wider wouldn't (yet) meet inclusion criteria. As a producer, I'd argue it merits more examination, but still fails. BTW The IP of that last anon. comment sure looks like a sock puppet if you follow the paper trail.

Droliver 20:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You clearly have some issue with me personally. I am not sure what it is, but frankly you have no experience in film and opining on it is ludicrous. I have produced those movies-not attached as some extra or peripheral person. Producing a film involves an intimate relationship with a major part of the film's creation. I object to this all seeing approach you have taken to this service and argue that you are depriving possible readers from learning about a number of valuable and informative documentaries that I have produced that are highly socially relevant and have achieved acclaim. Because they might not be playing at this moment in a theater in Birmingham, does not mean they are unimportant or not notable. Signed tmwmd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmwmd (talk • contribs) 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. KEEP THIS ENTRY: Every thing contained in this entry is NOTABLE and this is clearly a personal attack by Robert Oliver, MD, who is falsely accusing other physicians in his specialty without having any evidence to back up his baseless claims. If Wikipedia gives credence to false accusations like this one, it would be a travesty. Oliver, a plastic surgeon from Birmingham, Alabama has attacked other plastic surgeons in this manner, making false claims repeatedly. Wider, who helped firefighters during 9/11, who assisted multitudes of breast cancer patients is being attacked baselessly. Oliver should worry about his own practice, rather than comb the web looking for others to release his hostility on. Wikipedia needs to drop this senseless practice of allowing others to personally attack upstanding citizens who are making real contributions, like Wider.-((User talk: RenegadeLemonade50))

Several issues are being conflated here:

There seems to be some personal enmity between Oliver and Tony. This is irrelevant to the issue of Tony Wider's page.
The support for Tony Wider's page seems to come from Tony himself, an IP address that has a fair chance of being a Tony Wider sockpuppet, and a new Wikipedian User name. Such support is not particularly helpful.
Tony Wider started the Tony Wider page, and although WP:Autobiography is not forbidden, this makes the article on him suspect, and is highly likely to mean that the article violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. If the final decision is to keep the page, I think that Tony needs to make a commitment not to edit the page, or use a sockpuppet to do so.
Is there a Wikiproject:film group, or some guide in wikiproject:biogrpahy that says when a film producer counts as notable? If so, this should be used o estabnlish whether or not the article should be kept.
If the article is kept and if there is someone in a wikiproject film group or someone in Wikiproject biography with the necessray skills, perhaps someomne could go over the existing page and remove anything that violates OR and NPOV.
Suggestion: perhaps it would be better for Tony, Tony's friends, and Oliver to leave this issue for other people to discuss now.

I hope this helps. Tony, try to calm down about this. If you are notable and your article is deleted, you will undoubtedly find that someone else will start an article about you, one which could not be accused of being a vanity article.

P.S. Tony and Renegade you sign wikipedia articles by typing ~~~~ Anarchia 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm asking an uninvolved party to close this discussion as a possible bad faith nom. That does not mean any side has "won", because I will relist it as, to my mind, this does not pass notability. Let me make this crystal clear and, hopefully, answer some of Anarchia's questions. First, notability is not inherited. Just because someone has produced an award-winning film, 3 award-winning films, hell, 500 award-winning films doesn't mae the producer notable,especially if said awards went, by all indications, to the director. The producer has to have some press of his own, interviews for example, somewhat apart from the film. If I produce a film that wins awards for, say, Julianna Rose Mauriello, for example, it doesn't make me notable, unless multiple non-trivial sources are found to establish notability.

I looked at the IMDb for Beyond Conviction as well as its website and the film festival's page, as well as the sources cited in te article. NONE of them mention Todd Wider as the winner of the award that the film received. The director, Rachel, gets credit.

The support for this article,as Anarchia says, comes from the doctor himself as well as numerous SPAs with few edits outside this article. This is a no-no. This is NOT a vote! It is a discussion. To the new user who stated that Dr. Wider "changed legislation so women are eligible for insurance for breast cancer surgery", prove it.

I would also challenge Dr. Wider concept of notabiility as a producer. Where is the article for your brother, Jedd? Anyone else see a redlink? By your definition, he should have an article as well. Are you more notable than him?--Sethacus 17:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowest man essay

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, criteria R1 and G7 Sam Blacketer 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest man essay[edit]

This is an original research essay. No sources, but it can never be an encyclopedic article. Article's creator is new and may not understand that essays are not appropriate entries for Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 03:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an essay it is a commentary on an essay written by mark twain. the sources are listed at the bottom of the article. This is fact and an analyzation of literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejhockeyman (talk • contribs) 03:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and rename "The Lowest Animal" (somebody already did that). Ejhockeyman, please read WP:OR. The original research should be deleted, but Twain's essay is notable enough for an article. Clarityfiend 03:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (EDIT CONFLICT)Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An article about the essay might be acceptable (if it was found notable enough. . .?) but commentary is not because that is not an encyclopedia article. Even if this article is deleted we may still want a NPOV article on the subject. --Banana 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also can anything from the essay be merged into an article or should we just delete and start over? --Banana 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is an essay. It's an essay about an essay. As the creator states, this is "an analyzation of literature", so it's original research. Removing the OR is easy, and anything by Twain is inherently notable. I'm surprised this essay isn't even mentioned in Twain's article or his bibliography. Crazysuit 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The author has blanked the page, so I have tagged it as such. There would be little left if the OR was removed, so deletion may be the best thing and it can be recreated if anyone wants to write a sourced article in future.Crazysuit 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a redirect that leads no where. (As of this edit)--Alasdair 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Walton^One 14:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Shigenobu[edit]

Fails WP:BIO: She is not notable apart of being the daughter of someone who is. Tazmaniacs 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN - Merge any relevant info into Fusako Shigenobu. Spawn Man 05:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has notability independent from her mother as an author and social activist. Added reliable sources. cab 08:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. cab 08:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Social activist? Author? Can you proove the WP:Notability of such achievements? Is she
  - "regarded as an important figure or [is] widely cited by their peers or successors."?
  - "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"?
  - "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" ?
  - Has her book "(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." ?
- See again WP:BIO. Shigenobu fails all these prerequisites. One is not either a "social activist" because of one speech (I haven't found the guideline concerning Notability of "social activists", but she certainly doesn't fall in the Politician guideline, and is not comparable by any means whatsoever to someone such as Cindy Sheehan... Tazmaniacs 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I am quite familiar with WP:BIO; perhaps you should again review the part of WP:N about "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." She was interviewed in two parts by Tokyo Broadcasting System following the publication of her first book, and her second book was reviewed in a Japanese magazine of Middle Eastern affairs. This apart from the complaints generated over her speaking activities (e.g. by the Israeli embassy). Basically, she has accomplishments and media attention separate from the fact that she's her mother's daughter; no doubt her identity helped her get the first book deal, but apparently she was well-received enough to get a second one (from Koudansha, quite a reputable publisher). If the only news coverage was about her homecoming, I'd agree that she's non-notable, but there's rather more here to say than that. Being comparable or not to Cindy Sheehan or whoever is irrelevant. cab 10:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reality check: One question above was: Has her book "(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." ? The first OPAC I looked in was that of Tokyo's central municipal library. This has three books by her in its permanent collection. Is the library "internationally significant"? It's probably by far the most convenient to use among the small number of huge libraries within the largest megalopolis in the known universe; I imagine that scholars come from overseas to use it (in conjunction with other libraries), so yes I suppose it is. Does this answer the question? -- Hoary 01:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It isn't done by comparison--her own published writings seem sufficient. DGG (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tazmaniacs's description in the nomination makes this woman sound like Barbara Pierce Bush. But Ms Shigenobu has actually done something and is recognized for this. -- Hoary 14:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliable sources covering the subject have been provided. Bondegezou 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeobiologist[edit]

Dictionary-like entry. Page was started as a hoax definition, "fixed" at some point. Nothing links to it, and I'm not sure that it is in fact a subdiscipline of Archaeology. SolidPlaid 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let some time for it to be something more than a stub, the discipline appears genuine: Archaeobiology Program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Tazmaniacs 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's Archaeobiology, for which no page exists. This page should at best redirect there (if it existed). SolidPlaid 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - HOAX, OR, NN. The closest I could find is Zooarchaeology, Environmental archaeology, and Archaeobotany, all of which are legitimate. I think someone either created this page as a hoax or they didn't know what the actual name was for the practise, so created an incorrectly named article instead. There aren't many links from Google ([32]), and even then it says "Did you mean Archaeozoologist?" just confirming that this article may been an article intended to be for Zooarchaeology. Spawn Man 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HOAX and OR has already been disproven by Tazmaniacs. Turlo Lomon 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given other reasons and rationale for why I think it may be a HOAX, although I didn't say that it was definitely one. Spawn Man 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but open to recreate once more information is obtained on Archaeobiology, a page created, and then Archaeobiologist would be a redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Turlo Lomon 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note Actually, referencing the above link supplied, redirecting to Archaeological sub-disciplines may be a valid fix for this. Turlo Lomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlo Lomon (talk • contribs) 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be a hoax, hard to find any reference to this besides a few articles, seems like a made-up term for a field of archaeology. Zchris87v 09:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps create archaeobiology page first and redirect there. Didn't see the Smithsonian webpage. Zchris87v 09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the Google searches that we have established that there are a tiny handful of archaeobiologists in the entire world. If I told you I was an archaeometallurgist, would you have any trouble figuring that out? The article violates WP:DICT. SolidPlaid 09:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to Pennsylvania State University...

Archaeobiology – the interdisciplinary study of human populations, subsistence economies, past natural environments, and natural resources – represents one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of archaeological research today. It is a natural bridge between studies focusing on ancient societies and other scientific disciplines including demography, biology, and geography. Archaeologists contribute long-term perspectives spanning millennia to several pressing contemporary societal concerns, most importantly the growth in human populations and the long-term impacts of humans on their environments.

Another definition:

Archaeobiology is the combined and integrated analysis of plant and animal remains from archaeological sites. Archaeobiology is rooted in human-land relationships, the core of many historical processes. Civilizations rise and fall not only for political reasons, but also sometimes for ecological ones. Ancient decisions about agriculture, grazing, fuel-cutting, irrigation, and associated water management, especially in an arid environment are reflected in archaeobiological data such as charred seeds and bones. Not only do these remains help us understand the past, they mat also inform discussions of land use today [... Who drank the first cup of milk? How many places did milk drinking begin? Did human action or climate change destroy the early forests of the Middle East? Can dogs alter the interpretation of prehistory just by gnawing? How do pastoral peoples manage the health of their animals and work to provide them with adequate pastures? How do farmers and herders learn how to deal with the risk of hard times?...]

If the problem is just "archaeobiologist" and archaeobiology, then I'm sure we should simply redirect the former to the latter. Landscape archaeology actually seems to be more specialized than this description. Environmental archaeology, however, seems to be quite close, so maybe it could be just merged to the latter. I am no specialist, but for anyone a little interested in archeology, it is no surprise that modern disciplines made possible by both new technologies (population genetics, for instance) and new thought frame-works (environmentalism, for example) would lead to such long term archeological research. Note that if environmental archeology exclusively focuses on the relation between man and the environment, "archeobiology" includes the question of subsistence economies. Tazmaniacs 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other references: Kristin Sobolik, (University of Maine), Archaeobiology (AltaMira Press, 2003), Archaeobiology Research Laboratory at The Ohio State University, Larry J. Zimmerman & William Green (ed.). Archaeologist's toolkit (7 volumes:[...Vol. 5, Archaeobiology], Dr. Bruce D. Smith, Curator and Director of Archaeobiology Program, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, etc. Tazmaniacs 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand greatly - I think that since there are very few of these folks in teh world, there would be very few hits on Google and so would be proportional in interest and references. I agree that it needs to be expanded to remove the dictionary-like feel the article has. However, due to its uniqueness, I think we should keep it. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand--obvious n the basis of what Tazmaniacs has found--there is a good possibility that there have been other names used in the past for the same specialty, so the title might be worth some discussion subsequently once there is some content. DGG (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And certainly expand this. • Lawrence Cohen 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki To wikitionary. Mbisanz 02:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hardly just a definition, so much more can be added to this, who are the experts in the field? when did the subgroup come about? are there any institutes or groups associated with Archaeobiologists? So yeah, its mosy definately expandable --Childzy ¤ Talk 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.C.Rabbath Creations[edit]

A non-notable "film studio", No reliable independent sources (IMDB doesn't count), no releases of any note whatsoever. My prod was removed, so here it is. UsaSatsui 01:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN organisation; all of the movie links in the article are either red links or to disambigs which don't even mention the films, suggesting they're not notable at all. I think the creator may be involved with the company as well; they've made no edits outside of the article and it just seems to me they have a COI. Spawn Man 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam for a nn company. The IMDB link says it all: only one of the couple-dozen "films" listed has an IMDB entry, and even that has virtually no information or assertation of any significance at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Haemo 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Donato[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The only notability that Dick Donato has, is the fact that he is a contestant on Big Brother. He has a bio on the Big Brother 8 page that is sufficient. Most (if not all) of the information on this page, is listed on his bio on the Big Brother page. Rjd0060 01:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment:Dick Donato has a complete bio on the main BB8 Page. People don't seem to get that. There was a redirect to the BB8 page but when this page was created, the redirect was obviously removed. This page should be deleted. It is just a duplicate of information (Copy & Paste) from his bio on Big Brother 8 (US). - Rjd0060 14:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's only notable for his crass and abnoxious antics on Big Brother and name dropping. Like Rjd0060 says, everything about him is already on the Big Brother 8 (US) article. This is totally fancruft. - Jeeny ^Talk 01:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is covered well enough in the Big Brother 8 page, there is absolutely no different information between the two. - Spyke1077
Delete: Per above. Tazmaniacs 02:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It might have just been better to propose a merge, or even better, be bold and do it instead of AfDing it. Anyway, since you did, merge and redirect to BB8. i ^said 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the information is already in the Big Brother 8 (US) article. There is nothing to merge, as it's already there. That's why it's proposed for deletion. It's quicker...er ..I think. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just always use the two terms in tandem. And as for being quicker, if he was bold and did it, and no one reverted, five days is much slower. At any rate, the article shouldn't be left deleted, it needs to be a redirect at least. i ^said 03:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect was applied at the very begining, but got reverted somehow. <shrugh> - Jeeny ^Talk 03:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs some work, but I think he should have his own page. Why do alot of the other Big Brother alumni have pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigCoop (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— BigCoop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see why other stuff exists. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is perhaps the biggest personality to come out of this year's season of Big Brother. If Janelle Pierzina and Mike Malin have their own entries, for doing nothing notable except for appearing on Big Brother, then I think Dick Donato deserves his own page as well. 76.238.86.111 03:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.238.86.111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --WebHamster 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is that notable in an encyclopedic way? Also see why other stuff exists. - Jeeny ^Talk 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. WP:WAX applies to most of the keep arguments. --Strothra 04:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I were to comment on my decision right now I would say Merge if possible, but since the finale is Tuesday Sept. 18 I say hold off on a decision because Dick has a chance to win the game. And this article will be recreated by someone if he is crowned winner. So don't make an absolute decision until after the finale since the winner of the US, UK, or Australia Big Brother always have an article for the winner. See Brian Belo as an example. I am just saying that any decision resulting in the deletion of this article before Tuesday could ultimately undo the potential decision. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 04:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Even if he were to win, how is that going to change his page, other than "Dick won Season 8 of Big Brother"? When I get around to it, I am going to go through some other previous contestants' pages and checking if they have other notability. If they don't, those special pages will also be proud holders of AfD Templates too!!. - Rjd0060 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC) / Rjd0060 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I am just saying that people would recreate the page if he is the winner, a decision should be made after the finale. Other than that I am for Delete as per your nom. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 01:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Well, if it gets deleted, then recreated, it will be eligible for a Speedy delete, as per WP:CSD#G4. - Rjd0060 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel the winners might marginally notable, but since the Donato is not a winner of any BB series and his info is alrady on the main BB8 article, this article should be deleted. Spawn Man 05:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Out of the 2 "Keep" votes so far, one is from the main editor to the article and the other if from an IP with no other edits other than to this AfD. JSYK. Cheers, Spawn Man 05:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - or maybe just link to his biography somewhere, just under the Big Brother 8 page. Zchris87v 09:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect - No need for duplication of material, but it will more than likely be a search term used in the future so redirect to relevant Big Brother article. --WebHamster 10:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This won't be the last we hear of Dick Donato and this page needs to be here so it can be expanded over time. --MaraLuna 12:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC) — MaraLuna (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep We might want to keep this article for purpose for adding some things for his time on the show and he might the winner, although I doubt the jury would give him the prize. ScottAHudson 13:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Makes no sense! If we want to add things from his time on the show, then add things on the SHOWS PAGE. - Rjd0060 15:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Response to previous "Keep" comments: Ummm...OK. How about this: If Dick Donato becomes the President of the United States, then we will make him his own page. All of these arguments that say he might become notable, Well, thats not a good reason to give him a page NOW. - Rjd0060 15:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Correct, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We can't keep a page because he may win the show, or presume he will do something notable later. Just because he is popular before a viewing audience of 7 million, which may sound like a lot, but in industry standards, that's not a large viewership. OK for a summer show, but that's it. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wisecrack - It may not be a Crystal Ball, but it's as addictive as Crystal Meth :p --WebHamster 18:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on the show as individual contestants are not really notable. AniMate 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But they are really not so notable that they need their own page. Before this page was created, there was a redirect to his bio on the main Big Brother 8 page! If / when this page gets deleted, it (Dick Donato) would obviously be set to redirect to Big Brother 8 (US)#Dick again. - Rjd0060 20:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The man is an absolute nobody and will do nothing outside of the show. 86.153.56.91 22:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a brit, who lives in the UK and has (obviously) never seen your series of Big Brother, I can only comment upon the content of the article. This article seems to say little more than is mentioned on the page for Big Brother 8 (US), and until the contestant has done something notable outside of the house, I don't see what makes him more deserving of an article than any other contestant. I think that what is mentioned on the main page pretty much covers everything important here.-Toon⁰⁵ 23:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about we put this AfD on hold til Tuesday? If he wins, that is enough for notability per precedent of previous BB winners. Tarc 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: How about no! There really is no reason to keep it. Even if he does win, how is that going to change his page, other than "Dick won Season 8 of Big Brother"? As far as other winners having their own page, I can speak for only U.S. winners: 5 out of 7 previous winners have notability other than winning Big Brother, such as appearances on television shows, etc. The 2 that do not have other notability, well, I will be doing something about that (either adding notability information or adding AfD tags). - Rjd0060 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, because winning would itself be notable? Tarc 12:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a winner on Big Brother, isn't really that notable. Like I said, everything on this page is COPIED and PASTED from his bio on the main page. If he wins, there will be a total of 1 sentence added to this article that says he won. That is just not necessary. Once this page gets deleted (assuming it does for purposes of the explanation), there will be a redirect. So when / if people search for him, they will get his bio on the main BB8 page, which I will reiterate, is the same thing as this. - Rjd0060 15:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Big Brother 8 - as he only been notable for being a constestant - nothing else notable about him.--JForget 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I on the other hand have found Dick's tenacity in trying very hard to reconnect with his daughter, while at the same time playing the best game in BB history is reason enough to have a page in Wikipedia. He is very popular and I predict will have many tv offers in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missmobius (talk • contribs) 01:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: First of all, why does he need his own page, when everything on that page is copy and pasted from the main Big Brother 8 article? Secondly, as far as his future tv offers, Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball!. - Rjd0060 02:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the discussion appearing above occurred before he won the half million dollars. His notability has changed.

Keep. He's the big winner. He's not just a contestant any more. BB's other big winners get articles. Yes, a lot of the information was copied and pasted from the BB8 article. The article has to start somewhere. Dick is a record-setting winner for several reasons. His external links don't belong in the BB8 article. He has other things going on. Wryspy 07:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:5/7 of the other winners have other notability (ie: several television appearances, etc.).What other things does he have going on? Oh, A MYSPACE PAGE!? Well then if Dick has a myspace page, then he must be special! Oh, please. The only external links that you speak of are (2) Myspace pages, and (1) photo gallery from CBS.com (which can be added to his main BB bio). And what "records" has he set? Please, tell me. - Rjd0060 14:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for speedy close with no action: There is no AfD notice on the article and it has not been there since 21:51, September 16, 2007. It's ironic that someone fighting against this article's existence removed the AfD notice when turning the page into a redirect. Therefore this current discussion has been wholly improper since then. Do not blank or redirect an article while it's being discussed in AfD. People have to be able to see what they're discussing. Do not try to close an AfD if you're not an admin. (See this page's edit history.) Wryspy 07:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Restoring the tag now does not change the fact that it was improperly missing for four days. Wryspy 09:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Umm...Well lets see, the tag was removed and the page redirected on September 17. Since then, nobody even made a comment on this AfD page except, Jeeny, You, and myself. So nobody was affected by the missing tag. Sorry. - Rjd0060 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done by saying that is to help make my point for me. The absence of the AfD tag is why people couldn't know about this AfD to comment on it. I only found out about this because Jeeny mentioned it on my talk page. Otherwise, I'd have never known that an article I was editing was up for deletion. Wryspy 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, his notablity has not changed. The only thing notable is that he won a US reality show. A summer show at that. Please see WP:BIO and especially WP:WAX - Jeeny ^Talk 09:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can debate the degree of notability. That doesn't alter the fact that a change has occurred (and he didn't just win -- he set several records). People who voted to delete on the grounds that he was just a contestant (and I'd have agreed with that myself) might not agree that an article about a Big Brother winner should be deleted (again, take me for example). More importantly, it sure doesn't change all the improper things that have happened in this AfD. The AfD tag was missing for four days. You did that. You also tried to close the AfD as if you were an admin. At the very least, this AfD needs to be closed without action and started over from scratch. Do it right or not at all. Wryspy 09:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes: * Unless they are known in their own right outside of the show, people who appear as contestants in reality TV are not generally notable unless they are winners or runners up. Lists may exist for certain programs, such as Survivor or Big Brother (US). Note that Jeeny deleted that statement from the common outcomes page in the middle of a disagreement over the Dick Donato article. Don't try to change guidelines singlehandedly just because they contradict your position. Wryspy 09:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bit was added a couple of weeks ago, and without consensus about reality tv winners. They are not notable unless they have done something other than the reality show. This is an encyclopedia. Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 09:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark about its original addition without consensus is a good one, but it still comes across as a conflict of interest when you didn't fix that until it was convenient for you. And "Spelling bee winners: Winners of well known national spelling bees (like Scripps or CanSpell) are notable." has been in that article for a long time. Big Brother winners are more famous than national spelling bee winners. Wryspy 09:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When incorrect things are added to guideline pages, do you automatically know the moment it happens, or do find out later when you run across it? - Rjd0060 14:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fame and notability are two totally different things.---- WebHamster 10:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dick, with his unique fashion, catch phrases, and personality, has been an important part of 2007 US pop culture. Juppiter 15:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoopee he won, great, delete the article and let's move on to the next 5 minute wonder. ---- WebHamster 16:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or weak keep - There is a precedent set for winners of reality shows having their own articles, though I question the necessity of this. I would like to remind everyone to try and keep things a little less... shrill? Maybe not the word I'm looking for, but it's close enough. This is a contestant on Big Brother, and frankly once the fall season kicks in, no one is going to remember him. If the people who want to delete this so badly still care in say January, why not do a group deletion of all the winners who have done nothing else notable? Right now isn't really the time though, since fans are going to be extremely excited and adamant about the importance of (and let's be honest) a second tier reality show and its supposedly very notable winner. AniMate 17:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMy thing is that every winner has had their own page, and it would make sense to create one for him. Besides being the winner, he has caused much controversey (his comments and the California National Organization for Women info). I think that this would of been a different story if he didnt win, and that goes for other contestants as well. The fact still is that Dick won and there is plenty of things that can be said in the article just centering around big brother alone and as more things happen we can add them. Also, we can shrink the info on the main Big Brother page and just add a link towards his page.Rosario lopez 18:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 13:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Illuminati University[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This book of gaming instructions is not much more than a summary of each book’s content, and fails WP:Fiction for want of coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject; rather an award from a related trade association or link to a fansite are its only claims to fame, but fall short of WP:Notability. --Gavin Collins 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep "GURPS Illuminati University won the 1992 Origins Award for Best Roleplaying Supplement.[1]" This qualifies it under the books criteria, even if you don't understand the significance. This is the equivalent of saying a movie that won an oscar isn't significant. Turlo Lomon 01:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep. Haven't we done this dance before? Eh, whatever. This book won an Origins Award (a major award in it's genre), was a major release by a reputable publisher, and was authored by two rather significant figures, Kaja and Phil Foglio. I think it's about time you learned it's rude to WP:POINT, and turned your attention to endeavors other than GURPS books. --UsaSatsui 01:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to keep your cool, folks. This matter has so far been remarkably civil. --Kizor 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What more can I say that hasn't been said already in these debates? I do think that the editor is trying to make some WP:POINT, and wish I could figure out what it is. --Craw-daddy | T | 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Although I'm glad someone has made us thin out the GURPS books, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith - why is he going after the clearly notable GURPS books instead of, say, the D20 ones? Percy Snoodle 06:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per having won a major award. (By the way, what does "This book of gaming instructions is not much more than a summary of each book’s content" mean? Gavin, were you talking of some other book? I would love indeed to see a book containing summaries of "each book" in the world!) --Goochelaar 08:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Answer I noticed that the previous prods linked are not the same as the article being discussed for deletion. Is there some confusion on what book was prodded? Turlo Lomon 08:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep again, per above. An Orgins award winning supplement satisfies notability. Web Warlock 10:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Gavin, Origins isn't "related" unless the Academy (as in Acedemy Awards) is related to every film studio. Origins is independent of the publisher, authord, etc etc. SamBC(talk) 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gongriding[edit]

Hoax article. Article's creator has removed the speedy tag multiple times. I realized that I had replaced it 3 times only after I had done it, but article's creator again removed tag before I could remedy my own 3rr mistake. All links and references go to snowboarding articles, even the ones purported to feature "gongriding." This is an elaborate attempt at vandalism. Funny, but we need to delete it. OfficeGirl 00:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not "an elaborate attempt at vandalism," it's elaborate vandalism. SolidPlaid 02:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very well done, of nearly Onionesque quality. When the author is done wasting our time, they should go apply there. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a museum on Wikipedia for such articles? Perhaps this one can be sent there. SolidPlaid 02:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Uncyclopedia if possible. Delete if not. Maybe this article will win a GA status there. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of the more elaborate vandalism attempts. Amusing. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a move recommendation to something like Uncyclopedia - Although well crafted vandalism, this should be deleted because the fake sources make it difficult for us with real articles that are questioned to be able to say our article is really real. Amazed someone would spend so much time on this clearly fake article. Nesnad 04:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then Delete - Move to Uncyclopedia (The picture is quite well done) and then delete as a HOAX. The user should stop editing on Wikipedia where he'll get blocked and go to Uncyclopedia where he'll get praised (Who knows, an FA even...). :) Spawn Man 05:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete - Funny as heck, but doesn't belong on Wikipedia. If Uncyclopedia will take it, then it should be there. I blanked the page, because otherwise we have a massive live hoax sitting on the servers masquerading as a real article. FCYTravis 05:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki That article was truly a masterpiece, with a real Photoshopped image of a guy flying over a mountain with a gong. Too bad it's not suitable here, but may find a following in Uncyclopedia. Ha ha.--Alasdair 08:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently transwikied - Someone just uploaded it to Uncyclopedia here. Might be an A5 candidate soon ... :-) --Pekaje 12:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know we could Transwiki to Uncyclopedia. Isn't that a copyvio? Corvus cornix 17:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anything this user originally published on Wikipedia was released freely to the whole world, including Uncyclopedia, under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL).

Uncyclopedia uses Creative Commons, not GFDL. Corvus cornix 18:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the user's medium of choice for publication was Wikipedia, and that's GFDL.OfficeGirl 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that anybody can take any material they want off of Wikipedia and copy it to any other site and because it was released to Wikipedia under GFDL, copying it wihtout attribution is not a copyright violation? Corvus cornix 18:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YEP.OfficeGirl 18:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, why do we have so many sites reported at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks with letters going out warning people about committing copyright violations for copying Wikipedia content? Corvus cornix 18:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're right. There are some procedures, but they're very easy to comply with. But posting the content on Uncyclopedia after it first appeared on Wikipedia isn't an AfD matter. It looked like the creator of this article was constructing it in Wikipedia originally. It's a chicken or the egg question-- if it was on Uncyclopedia first then this is a COPYVIO deletion matter.OfficeGirl 19:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be a copyvio. Anything published on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and unless the authors have explicitly stated otherwise, any published copies must also be published under the GFDL. The Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Sharealike license, which Uncyclopedia uses, is not the GFDL. --Carnildo 20:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we can't technically transwiki, because of the licensing issue. However, since it was an Uncyclopedia user that violated copyright, and we're just going to delete the article anyway, it is of little concern to Wikipedia. If the author(s) wish to pursue legal action, they'll have to take it up with Uncyclopedia, but given the articles content that would be kind of self-defeating. --Pekaje 20:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a separate issue altogether than this AfD. Here we are only discussing whether to delete this article from Wikipedia, not enforcing Wikipedia copyright infringements occurring on other websites.OfficeGirl 20:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, we were discussing Transwikiing it to Uncyclopedia, which is moot now, but would be a copyright violation if it were to occur via a Transwiki. Corvus cornix 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the hoax - It's been blanked by User:FCYTravis anyway. --SGT Tex 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete patent nonsense.KTo288 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe)[edit]

This is a WP:POV fork from the article Klingons reads like original research. This version of the Klingons (described as the 'smoothhead' variety) are non-notable per WP:Fiction, and there are no independent references to support this WP:Fancruft.--Gavin Collins 00:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though it appears that it your opinion that any page involving a gaming/rpg subject is not to be included in Wikipedia. --Donovan Ravenhull 02:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable, referenced, but could do with a rewrite (But this is no reason to delete) Fosnez 13:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-comment While what you linked was policy discussion, Please read WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it which is widely accepted by editors already, before commenting on this article. Viperix 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in violation of WP:NOT, specifically, it's nothing but plot summary and game guide. I understand that this relates to the gaming version of Klingons as is described on the article page, but this violates WP:FICTION as it contains basically no details that aren't in-universe. Mango juice^talk 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (cleanup) - This is not an article fork; it's a fictional source material fork (see Star Fleet Universe, a wargaming and roleplaying gaming system derived from the original Star Trek TV series, not connected to the new TV series). The article's description is accurate and sourced to the gaming materials it's derived from (3 of the several dozen printed books, and plenty more magazines, related), and starts by placing it in real world context. If you feel there's too much cruft in the middle, that's not something that it's appropriate to fix by AFDing the article. One should delete if it doesn't have the required WP:FICT real-world elements. This does, plus much cruft in the middle. Cruft == cleanup, not delete. Georgewilliamherbert 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Without significant real-world information, this level of plot detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Georgewilliamherbert. Article is neither a POV fork, nor original research. Edward321 05:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wow a cruft argument in the nomination, that should make this a speedy keep per WP:HARMLESS#I_do_not_like_it. The problems with this article, which it does have could be fixed. Therefore it needs to be tagged appropriately and cleaned up not deleted. Viperix 20:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki Really more approriate at the Star Trek Wiki, the relevant details can be described in our Star Fleet Universe description, without all the inuniverse references. Mbisanz 02:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of YouTube celebrities[edit]

Delete It doesn't seem to serve any purpose a category couldn't; it's not divided into occupations or anything like that as other lists of this type are.--Gloriamarie 01:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have a rationale for deletion other than a suggestion for improvement? Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such a list will become jam-packed with wannabees. At least if they have to create an article for a YouTube "celebrity", it must pass muster. As a category, it should be called "Internet video celebrities" or some such so that it is not restricted to YouTube. SolidPlaid 02:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Such a category already exists, and I think there's more than enough justification for an article about "YouTube celebrity". Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Tazmaniacs 02:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep, but add references to really notable ones, i.e. those that make Countdown with Keith Olbermann or Attack of the Show, or make a category for ones notable enough to have their own articles. The sources are notable, at least: New York Times, Entertainment Weekly, Wall Street Jorunal, etc. show that the topic has received mainstream attention. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The really notable ones" have articles already. SolidPlaid 02:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article could be improved, but it's not listcruft. Quote from Wikipedia:Listcruft: "In general, a 'list of X' should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." "YouTube celebrity" can sustain its own article, as made clear by the abundant sources. For all intents and purposes, the entire New York Times story is a definition for the term. The article could probably take a note or two from List of Internet phenomena, but I can't think of a reason to delete outright. Ichormosquito 02:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no criteria for inclusion in YouTube and Category:Internet memes functions to categorize these kinds of articles.- Gilliam 03:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think Category:YouTube video producers does a better job, but I see your point. Still, isn't the phenomenon of YouTube celebrity notable enough to support its own artice? Ichormosquito 03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutural: This article is really unnecessary and is causing silly debates on who is notable or not. Though with a major makeover it could be worth keeping. Zanders5k 04:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also want to point out that in addition to sourcing its underlying theme, the article performs at least one other valuable function a category can't: for the sake of clarity, it lists YouTube aliases next to all the entries. Articles about YouTube vloggers are hampered by the fact that while the news media calls vloggers by their real names, fans oftentimes know vloggers best by their YouTube usernames. Listing them this way avoids confusion. Ichormosquito 04:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Ichormosquito's comments above. --Borgarde^talk 04:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. —Ichormosquito 05:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think a mention on the main YouTube article will be enough, as well a category. Spawn Man 05:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a great idea in theory but in practice it doesn't work well. This list started as a section in the main article but was broken out mostly for maintainability as it's too long to put into another long article and it's a high maintenance list. --ElKevbo 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since there's not really another way to be a celebrity on the internet (most celebrities are actors/actresses), this seems like it covers the category of "internet celebrities" apart from "internet phenomena", which covers the rest. Zchris87v 09:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the list useless. Elmao 10:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple main stream references indicate this is an appropriate topic. The only thing I find problematic is that is is specific to one brand, and should probably be given a more generic name, such as List of viral video celebrities. Dhaluza 11:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or categorise. Hmm... let's see... 53 entries... 8 sources... 53 entries... 8 sources. Something here doesn't quite add up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason I created this list is that it previously sat in the middle of the main YouTube article and contributed disproportionately to the length and maintainability (it's a spam magnet) of that article. I lean towards categorize or keep but I do not feel very strongly. I am happy to see and act on the input of the wider Wikipedia community. --ElKevbo 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or categorize The ones who have their own articles should contain sources in said articles demonstrating notability (otherwise, they should be AfD'd themselves). Those without their own articles should have a reference demonstrating notability. Those that do not fit into either of the above categories should be removed from the list. With that said, the mere lack of sourcing does not mean this is an unnecessary list. The parameters of said list fit into all guidelines, as it collects people who are all notable for the same specific reason (and not that they are all left-handed or all from the same county, but that they all gained notariety due to one culturally-significant phenomenon). I would categorize only if there are no notable (and sourced) entries that do not have their own articles; if this is the case, then the list is pointless, as it doesn't add anything that a category doesn't cover (i.e. it's simply a list of names with zero added information). -- Kicking222 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment James Provan is one such case of a performer on YouTube who, although he gained media attention for one of his videos, could probably never sustain his own article. I'm sure there are other cases. Ichormosquito 16:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sxephil, who gets almost 1 million hits on Google but only three sentences in a New York Times article, is another. He's also one of the 20 to 30 YouTube users in YouTube's revenue sharing program. Ichormosquito 18:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cory Williams is another. Ichormosquito 02:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should probably point out that something like this was deleted before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notable YouTube memes. The difference is that since then, YouTube's cultural significance has grown exponentially, as the sources related to "YouTube celebrity" attest. From the sound of it, the previous article did not try to assert why its topic was notable. This one does. Ichormosquito 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP useful article 68.62.22.239 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:USEFUL. Usefulness, in itself, does not necessarily justify keeping an article. Terraxos 03:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (but only information that can satisfy WP:V and WP:RS) with List of Internet phenomena - lists are both on the same subject and I don't see why YouTube celebrities in particular need their own separate list. Anyone on YouTube is going to be elsewhere too. Wikidemo 21:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we were to merge all the verifiable stuff, List of Internet phenomena would quadruple in size. I think the sources indicate that "YouTube celebrity" is a notable enough quantity in and of itself. And they are not the same subject. See these recent articles for evidence of the increasing popularity of online video and YouTube in particular:[33][34] There's no reason why we should have only the most general coverage of such a huge field. Ichormosquito 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see how even a single 'YouTube celebrity' can assert their notability, never mind a whole list of them. Anyone sufficiently notable to be called a celebrity is likely to be known for more than just making youtube videos, and is therefore likely to feature in other articles, lists, categories etc. That just leaves people who whatever reason have a lot of page views on youtube, which doesn't seem like a very good argument for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Short version: the list exaggerates the importance of some entries and downplays the importance of others, and does justice to no-one. Therefore it should be removed --carelesshx _talk 01:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is asserted through sourcing, and YouTube celebrities are judged by the same criteria as any celebrity in any other forum. Dhaluza 04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The above arguments show quite a mix of invalid deletion rationales: 1/ "listcruft" 2/ not as good as it might be 3/ might become fllled with spam, 4/ "per above" 5/ unnecessary 6/ "I found the list useless" 7/ only some of the items have been sourced 8/ no youtube celebrity is notable, or can ever be. A nice compendium of arguments to avoid in deltion discussions. The only valid argument is that a category might be sufficient, but several reasons have been given why the added information here is valuable. DGG (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or categorise - I think this list could work equally well as a category, but one way or another, it should exist. Since we have articles on most of these people already, it makes sense to have a list/category that collects them all in one place. It could be expanded into an article on 'YouTube fame' in general, but even if it were, this list would probably still take up about 90% of the page. Terraxos 03:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on categorization: The list contains entries for people covered in RS, but not in sufficient detail for a stand-alone article. So categorization is not a substitute for a list in cases like this. Dhaluza 04:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Youtube celebrity If necessary, delete the list of performers. But the concept of a youtube celebrity is notable. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 09:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless list, maybe make it into some sort of category as mentioned above--$UIT 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Feels a lot like a highschool popularity contest to me... --Tarage 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Every entry is backed up by reliable sources. "Popularity" has nothing to do with it. If it did, daxflame, Kevjumba and What the Buck would be listed. Ichormosquito 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep today, the internet is as much a place as any country, this page deserves to be here as much as a page about American Celebrities or French Actors or anything. At least keep it as a category. Gaiacarra 11:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable subject. If it's worthy of coverage by the New York Times, for pete's sake, that pretty much covers any notability requirements. Obviously needs to be policed to make sure those listed actually are considered celebrities, etc. Start with the ones cited by New York Times, and work from there. I agree the words "List of..." should be removed from the title, as that's an AFD magnet these days. 23skidoo 17:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of "YouTube celebrity" is a worthwhile encyclopedic topic. 23skidoo offers sage advice on how to revise this article. RFerreira 19:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per 23skidoo's suggestions. --Sodium N4 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve - I see where 23skidoo is coming from on this. That said, the list must be gone through with a fine comb, to ensure that ONLY people who have been mentioned in the New York Times (etc.), and who "earn ad revenue in YouTube's partnership program", are actually on the list. No cruft = keep. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to Starblind's comments above, all people who aren't mentioned by a source should be removed - only the rest should stay. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding sources now. I think the sources will discourage spam. Ichormosquito 18:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Portillo 06:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Überplay[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable religious board-game maker. The piped links with the irrelevant surprise targets are a hint, and the photoshopped billboard on their web site says it all: "THE BEST GAMES YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF" (translation: OUR GAMES ARE NON-NOTABLE). Reswobslc 07:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per WP notability. The "best games you've never heard of" on the company's website just about says all that needs to be said. Zchris87v 09:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable spam with a hint of duplicity thrown in (see piped links per nom). Personally I'd have speedied it as it doesn't actually assert notability. --WebHamster 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as one of the major publishers in the field of German-style board games; at least two of their games - Alhambra and Hoity Toity - have won the highest awards given for such games. The nominator is misinformed that Überplay are a religious board-game maker; that's just one of their imprints. Percy Snoodle 11:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep extremely important publisher of hobbyist games, some of which (e.g. Reiner Knizia's "Ra") are among the best-known within their genre. In 2003 they published "New England" which won the coveted "Game of the Year" award from Games Magazine, as well as "Wildife" which won "Advanced Strategy Game of the Year". Reliable sources should not be a problem: I found this one within seconds, and there are many more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adding to Starblind's finds: [35] and [36]. Seems to be worth keeping, altho the article would probably benefit from a rewrite. Yngvarr 13:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the sources found above, the company produced/released multiple games that had WP articles demonstrating sufficient notability before the article on Uberplay even existed. Their article doesn't really portray the company's significance (aside from linking to its games' articles) but as shown by Andrew and Yngvarr, adding a few references/links can easily change that. Let's just make sure these sources are actually added to the article. -- Kicking222 15:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this publisher is indeed notable, but no one adds any substantial content to the article, then I think it should still be deleted (perhaps to be recreated when someone has something to say). If you subtract the "we love board games" advertising pitch, the only thing left is "Überplay is a manufacturer of board games a,b,c,d,e,f". That alone doesn't merit an article. Reswobslc 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If a manufacturer of board games can't be notable by manufacturing notable board games, then what could they possibly do to become notable? "While playtesting 'Hoity Toity', Überplay's design team accidentally discovered a cure for Cancer."? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited, but they could receive major industry awards, non-puff piece press, something about them that's unique e.g. they only employ one-legged New Guinea cannibals with post graduate qualifications, you know, the usual ;) --WebHamster 19:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's true that notability isn't inherited in the other direction; A subject being notable doesn't make every part of that subject notable, so a game by a notable publisher doesn't become notable. But notability of part of a subject does make the whole subject notable, so a publisher of notable games is notable. If notability doesn't propagate upwards then we get into all sorts of trouble; things linke Physics lose all claim to notability because they don't inherit notability from aAstrophysics, Biophysics, etc... Percy Snoodle 08:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their games have won major industry awards, as has already been noted. Game of the Year is extremely significant, as is Spiel des Jahres, the closest the boardgame industry has to the Oscars or the Emmys. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

|The game won the award, not the company. That's like a director getting the shins of the Oscar statuette because the actor won the award for best actor in his film. I meant industry awards, errr, err, like services to gaming or somesuch. Generic business awards that relate directly to the company. And don't forget the cannibals, you never know, there's always an outside chance! --WebHamster 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, it's like saying that the award counts for the actor and the film. Which it does. Percy Snoodle 09:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if all this is true, I would have never guessed it by reading the article, since the article is essentially blank. Perhaps someone voting "Keep, this company is notable" can actually write an article. Saying "Keep, this company is notable" is not a valid rationale for a proposal to delete an essentially empty article. Reswobslc 21:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to get silly. You're saying that the industry's highest honour, Spiel des Jahres, doesn't count, but "generic business awards" would?! Did you actually read the SDJ article? I quote: "the winner can usually expect to sell 300,000 to 500,000 copies". It isn't the Lower East Appleton Chamber of Commerce Award for Prettiest Lobby Furniture Arrangement or whatever. People recognise it worldwide and it has a huge impact, just like winning a major Oscar would. To follow your Best Actor Oscar example, the actor would of course recieve an article, as would the associated movie, the director, other stars, producer, studio, etc. I think you're misquoting/misunderstanding what "notability is not inherited" really means. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Can usually expect" is not the same as "did get". Surely "people recognise" should be prefixed with "some"? There seems to be some usage of WP:WEASEL words going on here I'm afraid. As regards the actor/Oscar analogy. If an actor receives an Oscar, from a WP POV, he deserves an article based on his own notability. His winning an Oscar does not automatically mean that the film is deserving of one too. The film may have flopped, received no publicity and been a total failure, but the Oscar award is based on the actor's own performance/work. This is what I mean by inherited, and I don't think I'm misreading the guidelines. A best selling game could be cranked out by a totally non-notable company that folded 2 days after the game was lauded. This doesn't reduce the games notability, but the game itself doesn't infer notability on the manufacturer. They are totally separate entities from a Wiki standpoint. At least that's my understanding of notability inheritance. I could of course be wrong. ---- WebHamster 13:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, with the discussion above, I've added a little bit to the article in question, and maybe some others might want to jump in as well. I still stand by my keep vote, and my suggestion to improve the article. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with previous comment, and if Spiel des Jahres is so important, perhaps the effort spent on telling us we're nuts for not knowing how wunderbar this award is can be put into adding that information appropriately into the article (so that it asserts notability). Reswobslc 18:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as publisher of games winning the industry's highest awards. Rewrite to emphasize these awards and to provide citations from independent coverage rather than self-promotion. If you haven't heard of RA nor ALHAMBRA, you probably haven't heard of any Eurogames enough to judge notability. Barno 20:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article needs improvement, but that is not grounds for deletion. This company has produced several award winning products and produces a good deal more than religious themed games. Edward321 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblind. A company that has produced award-winning games has certainly gained some glory and notability for itself as well, "WP:NOTINHERITED" refers to relations which are not very relevant to the context. Also, the nominator should know better than making this kind of edits, soapboxing for the deletion of the article in the article itself, in an utterly ridiculous self-referencing fashion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, you should really pay more attention to things before you call them "ridiculous". It's bad karma, if nothing else. By now it's fair to say I have figured out that the article is going to get kept, so to publicly conclude I'm "soapboxing for its deletion" is sort of ridiculous itself is it not? Do you realize that in your haste to revert the comment you didn't like added, you also reverted other unrelated changes to the rest of the article? Reswobslc 13:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Regardless of the adjective used to describe the comment, it was certainly ill-considered as it breached Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. ---- WebHamster 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does anyone else want to jump on the bandwagon and come up with even more adjectives for that one edit? Sheesh, if the article itself were anywhere near as long as this AfD, it would almost be a Featured Article candidate. Reswobslc 18:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Do we take that to be an admission of regret then? And one mustn't confuse quantity with quality dear boy :) ---- WebHamster 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If my aspirations including becoming an admin, then I suppose that would be a regrettable action. But since criticizing those who "wiki-talk" versus those who "wiki-walk" has exactly the same consequences whether done here or in an article, I can't say that I can associate any regret with inappropriately doing so in the article itself. As a single isolated incident, I'm not about to get blocked for it. I am referring to any person can't lift a finger to assert notability in the article, but who can argue with mucho gusto for how important this company is in an AfD. By the way, what is the deal with so-called Camille Cleverly? (that's not even the correct spelling of her name). Reswobslc 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: it just seems a load of rubbish in my opinion - they're games that wouldn't look out of place in a charity shop. Agree with the "The best games you've never heard of" slogan making it automatically not-notable. To me it is just a waste of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard n (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would probably have to take you to task for the final portion of your justification: a companies slogan is not a criteria for notability. Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yeow Sun[edit]

delete - minor figure in Singapore. Only large following among her church goers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boucy - Not of major figure in Singapore, Did appear in the US Dance billboard,which is not of high relevance moreover many obscure artist have appear and have gone.More publicity and wide-spread fame is needed.followers mainly church atendee average singapore do not really knwo herMeganchua (talk • contribs)

Keep. She's well known in the Chinese-speaking region and has had a large number of singles on the Billboard charts. The problem with the article is, as the Rt.Hon.anonymous above implies, that it's overrun by rabid armies of fanboys who go to her husband's massive church and delete anything that's not sufficiently hagiographic. (Cf. Talk:Ho Yeow Sun.) Jpatokal 11:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, popularity in the US is not required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Assuming that at least a few of the claims made are true, she passes WP:N. Burzmali 13:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a "large following among her church goers" would signify notability - Fosnez 14:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Since establishing her career as a pop artist in April 2002, she has been involved in raising funds for various charitable organizations Her humanitarian team had been involved in the Tsunami Disaster Relief Operations (2005), building of schools and medical clinics in Indonesia and China." I would say she is notable and passes WP:N. Also I quote from WP:N, "This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"". Minesweeper.007 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For someone who is from Singapore and is the “Music Ambassador of the Olympic Songfest for the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games”, how can the person be a minor figure? Jing13 19:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 16:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent sung[edit]

Non-notable teenage wrestler, does not come close to meeting WP:BIO. Dsreyn 17:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nom, doesn't come close. Accounting4Taste 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking Google, there Vincent Sungs as reporters, and businessemen, but not as a wrestler, so it might by a hoax, and anyways it is a non-notable individual anyways if it's not a hoax.--JForget 22:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO, non -notable, but I guess it could be re-created if he does enter WWE or the 2008 Olympics-- Coasttocoast 23:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon[edit]

It's an odd AfD where the same user who created the AfD also casts the first vote for "Keep". See Reswobslc's insertion of his replacement of a Keep vote in place of the initial debate over the AfD, here. Also, every vote so far has also been keep. There is no one apparent, including the proposer of the AfD, who feels otherwise. This seems like a good candidate for Speedy Keep. Admins? - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 02:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It only appears odd - if it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true - read carefully. I did not cast the vote - rather, I took an off-topic discussion and summarized it into a "keep" vote on behalf of the user that initiated the discussion who obviously feels the article should be kept. But with no other support for deleting it, the speedy keep might as well happen. Reswobslc 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with what Reswobslc did with my original entry, although I don't consider my discussion to be off-topic. I am in favor of keeping the article and working out any npov issues editors identify. --TrustTruth 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resume chronological discussion:

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a wikified essay merely arguing that linguistic analysis proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as being of ancient origin - a highly controversial claim. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and is not balanced at all. Its brief mention of opposing viewpoints is for the purpose of rebutting them. A more appropriate title would be "Linguistic reasons why the Book of Mormon is true", but then that would only make it more obvious that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Reswobslc 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:TrustTruth - apparently feels that Criticism of Mormonism is a comparable counter-example of why this article should be kept, as he copied my nomination rationale verbatim, substituting that article name in place of this one. Offtopic discussion thread regarding Criticism of Mormonism article moved to Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Encyclopedic or not and refactored by User:Reswobslc into a Keep. Reswobslc 01:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate field of study that some scholars in ancient languages work in. I don't doubt that it is an article that may be difficult to maintain NPOV, especially if certain sources are used to the exclusion of others. But a lack of NPOV to me doesn't justify deletion—it more suggests that the article needs working over and further research. Rich Uncle Skeleton ^(talk) 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is very informative about the ways in which scriptural texts are studied to verify their authenticity. I find that the author did a good job in trying to keep the article natural and unbiased! But as we all know that can be a very difficult task when writing, because everyone is going to come away with a different thought and take on what the author was trying to portray. When we write something and when we read something, it is hard to keep our own biases out of what we write and read. The person who is complaining about the article thought it came off as biased towards proving Mormonism. I read the article and thought that they made a valiant attempt at staying natural as well as educating me on different writing styles and the history of many different languages! I came away with more knowledge about language itself, then I did about Mormonism! Jones1987 08:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is one of interest to many people on all sides of the argument. If it isn't balanced enough, add appropriate citations that adequately portray all points-of-view. Bochica 14:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia would quickly shrink to one or two pages if everyone deleted every page where they thought they could detect an NPOV-vio in it. Any NPOV-vios here should be fixed and the article improved, not removed. The title represents a topic that has been the focus of many publications over many decades, that have had a broad spectrum of conclusions on the matter from extreme opinions to one side or the other to balanced academic evaluations. And there is enough material on this topic in particular to give it its own page rather than trying to cover it all in the main pages for Book of Mormon or the LDS Church. - Reaverdrop _(talk/nl) 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — This article has a lot of information on this topic. If there is a bias, please work to correct it. — Val42 01:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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