Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

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 Article itself has long since been deleted. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Thai Airways Flight 358[edit]

Per article talk page, incident most likely never took place. No reliable sources have been found by task force members. Dali-Llama 03:31, 8 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Uhuru[edit]

Disputed prod, and disputed lot of other things too, it seems. Sending this over to AfD as a procedural thing. UsaSatsui 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 of the 16 citations point to the same link from a POV-suspect source (WorldNetDaily). Wl219 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. --Evb-wiki 02:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has been a rumor ever since the first glimmerings of freedom were heard in South Africa 25 years ago, the only thing that changes is the alleged trigger. Giving blacks the vote? Combining the segregated parliaments? The first black government? Somehow it's always tomorrow. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 9 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 as A7 (NN-bio). ELIMINATORJR 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waggs Kevin[edit]

Local radio DJ. Non-notability per WP:BIO. Self penned bio so WP:COI. Links provided don't even refer to him. Author/Subject removed prod with no comment WebHamster 23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, article doesn't assert notability. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:51, 8 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. Carioca 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changhua Plain[edit]

unsalvageably incoherent Gfzh 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rewrite. The article is clearly on a verifiable and significant place, and just happens to have been written by a user whose English isn't that great. That isn't a reason to delete the article, as you've been told by me and one other admin. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further note, I've had a go at rewriting the article based on what it seems to be about. Someone more versed in Taiwanese geography might want to pass an eye over it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - BigHaz should learn language and read sources before making wrong information - Changhua Plain not east of Nantou County, Changhua Plains east neighbor is Nantou County. Wikipedia: false information better than no information? I not correct mistakes by BigHaz - BigHaz too often claimed I not understand language but he not understand language and adds mistakes to wikipedia. Gfzh 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are able to correct mistakes in the article, then why not correct them rather than sending the article to AfD? This suggests that the article is nowhere near "unsalvageably incoherent". Additionally, my claims in relation to your language ability have been because of your constant willingess to list articles for speedy deletion when they are not in English. Consider this the last warning that you will receive regarding disruptive editing behaviour. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - BigHaz introduces mistake in article because article so bad written that even BigHaz not understand, and now BigHaz threaten me for showing he introduced false information in wikipedia when he tried correcting unsalvageably incoherent article without knowledge of article content. Gfzh 23:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        No. BigHaz makes a good-faith attempt to clear up an article which was in a rather sorry state but clearly about a notable place. BigHaz, due to his lack of knowledge about Taiwan, makes an honest mistake. Gfzh, who had previously claimed the article to be unsalvageably incoherent, then declares that BigHaz has made a mistake (which, incidentally, BigHaz always admitted may have been a possibility), thereby demonstrating the article to be anything but unsalvageably incoherent and also demonstrating that perhaps Gfzh should have tried to improve the article as BigHaz and another admin suggested before this AfD was opened. BigHaz, who has been attempting since August 24 to help Gfzh, simply cannot assume good faith on Gfzh's part, as his disruptive editing continues. That's what's happened here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it just me or does it seem that it's not the article that's unsalvageably incoherent, it's Gfzh? --WebHamster 00:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Manners, WebHamster, manners. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems perfectly readable to me. A valid article. --WebHamster 23:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep clearly notable, — BillC ^talk 00:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable as a geographic feature. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like most of the other geographical stubs, readable, concise and notable. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES re: geographical places, and WP:SOFIXIT. Wl219 01:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geographical features such as this are notable. --Oakshade 02:26, 9 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. Walton^One 15:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Council of Diaspora Métis[edit]

There are no listings of the council on Google. The group doesn't have a website, doesn't display information on the leaders of the organization, and gives no ways for contacting the organization save for an address. In other words, this seems more like a hoax organization, not to mention that the creator of the article already has a history of creating hoax articles like Spacepol. Toussaint 23:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable group. 12 UNIQUE Google hits for Council of Diaspora Métis so it is not a hoax. However, "The Council of Diaspora Métis, founded in 2006 represents the interests of Métis people located temporarily or permanently outside of Canada in the European " makes it sound like a non notable group to me. This link leads to a site that leads (you guessed it) back to the Wikipedia article. I see no hint of notability in the G hits. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all of those hits direct back to the Wikipedia article as a source as well, including this and this. Every other link is from sites like Answers.com and Medwiki, which rip the text from WP under the GFDL without much discretion. I dunno if hoax is the right word, but it seems like a number of people have been duped into thinking that this is an actual organization, including a Canadian government organization.--Toussaint 01:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yah, but no hint of notability. I thought at least the Canadian government one would verify the thing. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo for nonnotable group (if indeed they exist). Wile E. Heresiarch 18:11, 9 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 G4. Non-admin closure. Tomj 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Chaos Black[edit]

Once again, a hacked version of hte game that does not have "significant secondary coverage" (WP:N). This version cites a fan site, which does not qualify as an WP:RS enough to support the existence of an article; and Yahoo Video, which is also not good enough as a reliable source. Speedy denied. hbdragon88 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per nom. The one on the talk page is wrong, there needs to be a discussion about the recreation of this page first, not the other way around. TheBlazikenMaster 23:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Double edit-conflicted Speedy delete G4 as recreation of deleted material (article was nuked in June), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 23:53, 8 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, default to Keep. (However, the article seriously needs cleanup to reduce POV issues.) Walton^One 15:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Alinejad[edit]

A criminal in Iran, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Page is mostly a "save this person" article. Non-notable in the end. Jmlk 1 7 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a touch of the old WP:SOAPBOX to me. --WebHamster 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom and Web Hamster. BTW, I just replaced the AfD notice. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 00:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has sources. A case could be made that he is not a criminal. Iran may put a 17 year old to death in violation of a treaty they signed. Ergo notable. SolidPlaid 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Darth Kalwejt 09:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP' - Reza Alinejad's case is currently being reviewed by Iran's highest court in Tehran. It is very important to keep the international community informed about his case and spread the message about his case to everyone via the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaj (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourced and the article asserts notability. --Borgarde^talk 06:14, 13 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. Maxim_(talk) 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Central (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambiguation is unnecessary at this time. Two topics with similar names already link to each other as alternate meanings. Godlvall2 22:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it should have either hatnotes or a disambig page, not both. I'm not certain what policy says about which should go. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Farix (Talk) 03:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not exactly sure that deletion is the best option here. There really isn't anything wrong with the disambiguation page other then that it only has two entries. But that by itself is not a good enough reason to delete a disambiguation page. I've looked through the guidelines on disambiguation pages and found no minimum number of similarly named articles required before a disambiguation page can be created. While hatnotes are the recommended method for disambiguation between two articles, a disambiguation page with only two entries does not violate any of the current policies or guidelines. --Farix (Talk) 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--JForget 23:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation pages like this are pointless, there is only one article called Anime Central, and that has a link to AnimeCentral. No one will ever be directed to this page, just delete it. Crazysuit 01:39, 11 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural references to the Sengoku period[edit]

Delete - survived a previous AFD solely on the argument of keeping it separated from the article Sengoku period. Creating lists of trivia for the sole purpose of keeping the information out of the main article is unacceptable. As with any number of other similar laundry lists being passed off as articles, this should be deleted. Otto4711 22:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total junk, this "page" basically says "so and so" took place in this era. Dannycali 22:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redistrbute the information to respective pages, especially all the fictional setting references with links to the main article where needed. OOPS, Wikipedia is not an indiscrimante collection of information. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Fg2 01:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia, unencyclopedic. Keb25 02:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because encyclopedic list that survived an earlier discussion and was renamed accordingly. Not a copyvio, nor a hoax and multiple users contributed to article, which demonstrates that interest is out there for readers to read and potentially continue to improve this article and it would be a shame to be exclusive of those reader and contributors. As always, references could be helpful. Perhaps something like this article, which even has a "Sengoku period in modern culture" section? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> As is sadly quite often the case, your reasons for wanting the article kept do not address the issues raised in the nomination. The mere fact that the article survived once before does not mean it should be kept now. Consensus can change and consensus has become relatively strong against these sorts of laundry lists. The fact that people have worked on it is also not a reason to keep it. Otto4711 07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A number of these articles have been kept and revised lately, so if anything general consensus seems to be returning in favor of keeping, but just improving these articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletes outnumber keeps by roughly five or six to one. Otto4711 16:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we go by the notion that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that it therefore is not all about numbers or percentages? Even if it were five to one, that "one" could represent hundreds or thousands of editors and/or readers that find value in working on these kinds of articles. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to the ratio of deleted articles vs kept articles, not the ratio of editors on one side or the the other. Otto4711 19:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Despite its sophisticated title, this appears to be mostly about video games with samurais in them. I remember John Belushi in the classic "Dry Cleaner from the Sengoku Period" sketch on SNL... Mandsford 13:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic trivia list. Wikipedia is not an indiscrimante collection of information. -- Chris B • talk • contribs 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP != trivia catch-all. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per more trivia-trash with any verification.--JForget 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate trivia list of video games. Crazysuit 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Collection of loosely associate topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR. Shouldn't have been kept last time if it was based on being better here than there. Jay32183 03:34, 11 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. Walton^One 15:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Whilst the World Was Asleep We Were Listening To...[edit]

Several concerns with this one: WP:V, for starters. I could find no reliable sources on google searches either for the article's name or for Jon McClure mixtape. Nothing that even mentions it, infact. It may be a hoax, infact, but I doubt it... More likely just original research. Also concerned over the notability of it. Whilst it's not enough for A7 I don't think (the guy who issued it certainly is notable), notability isn't inherited. Are mixtapes in their own right ever notable, infact? WP:MUSIC doesn't cover them specifically, but if treated as an album then this surely fails the notability front. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - boy, this is an interesting one. WP:MUSIC#Albums doesn't mention mix-tapes at all. While most of the artists included on said tape are notable, the guy who mixed it has only one song on the album. Him and his band just barely squeak out WP:MUSIC notability, not nearly enough, I think, for a random personal mix-tape to be notable at face value. There's also no sources, suggesting a lack of media interest, and appears that only 200 copies were made (and handed out for free, no less). Therefore, I'm going to say it does not achieve notability. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 22:46, 8 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 A7. Pascal.Tesson 23:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RabbitWiki[edit]

This software doesn't look to be notable enough and it doesn't cite except its website. Soroush83 21:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A7 - no mention is made of how or why this meets WP:WEB. It's also a total WP:COI vio (and a borderline WP:SPAM vio), which doesn't really matter since it already fails A7. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 22:49, 8 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina James[edit]

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, absolutely no evidence of lasting cultural or historical significance, Wikipedia is not a directory of cookie-cutter porn "stars". Guy (Help!) 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very cute, but fails WP:PORNBIO for notability. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:PORNBIO. UnknownMan 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't. Epbr123 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote stricken using HTML strike tags due to the "Strong Keep" vote below. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Don't know why. UnknownMan 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Vote recovered from unwarranted deletion by User:Picaroon. It is no one's place to remove other people's comments; the closing admin must take into consideration all votes. Higher quality votes with substance, of course, have more weight then non-quality votes, since AfD is not a vote. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm so embarassed making these comments on several of these types of actresses hence the new user name. I am embarassed to admit that I have watched some of these videos. This actress is an up and coming actress but isn't yet notable, from my knowledge of the subject. Blushing 19:12, 10 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 per CSD A7. —Kurykh 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metabrand[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not an internet guide. Captain panda 21:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Speedy Delete: A7 - 'nuff said. No assertion of notability. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 22:26, 8 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 Abject nonsense on a stick, with cream and a cherry on top. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy's underamhair[edit]

This information exists in other articles. Redundant. Captain panda 21:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not just redundant but a copy of Underarm hair Speedy? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor correction That should have been a copy of the first two paragraphs of Underarm hair. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speed-D. Creator could not even spell it right ... underam? Looks like a mangled cross between a hoax, something made up ~~at school~~ after school one day while during homework for a good online laugh with the boys, and a poorly copied and redundant version of underarm hair. Is that kid licking his underarm? Ewwww. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 21:33, 8 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. Carioca 18:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watton United F.C.[edit]

procedural nomination Previously considered as part of a mass-AFD Aug 2006 with result 'keep'; tagged for PROD-based deletion Sept 2007 but should have been brought back here. The original AFD discussion began with an assertion that the F.C. did not meet WP:CORP. The Sep 2007 PROD was accompanied by the following assetion: "Amateur football club playing below Step 7 and having never played above that level. No other apparent reason for notability (e.g. cup run)." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of football (soccer)-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total absence of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clubs plays below step 7 and has no reason for notability. Number 5 7 22:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Keep New evidence from ChrisTheDude shows the club has played at a notable level in the past. Number 5 7 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 23:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as per the Football Club History Database, the team has in the past played as high as the Eastern Counties League Premier Division, which is at step 5 and therefore within the generally-agreed notability guidelines. Article could do with expansion/improvement, though..... ChrisTheDude 23:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Evidently, the club has played at a notable level in the past. However, the article does require a bit of an overhaul. - PeeJay 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ChrisTheDude. I have added a sentence to assert notability but there do not seem to be a lot of sources to draw on so to improve the article. --Malcolmxl5 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - would have passed the frequently applied barrier for English football clubs of being at Level 10 or above, with a level to spare in the past, and as notability isn't temporary, the article should remain. - fchd 07:14, 9 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 --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith McGinn[edit]

Non-notable news producer. There is no assertion why this person is significant within her industry. Cmprince 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability standards. Only one link is provided and links to the station's website. Zchris87v 05:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the Executive Producer of FOX's #1 market station news affiliate is a major assertion of notability. --Oakshade 04:33, 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, KrakatoaKatie 20:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a handful of G-hits, none support notability. There are many thousands of people in similar positions in business management in the United States - the job alone does not earn them notability. MarkBul 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not "many thousands" Executive Producers and Assistant News Directors of major network New York City affiliates news broadcasts. That number would be about 8. --Oakshade 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Although some in the business might not believe it, television news is no different from any other business. There are thousands of such people in Manhattan alone - think Wall St. MarkBul 21:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are only at most 3 Executive Producers per affiliate and rarely are there more than 1 Assistant News Directors per affiliate. And it doesn't matter if there are many Executive Producers and News Directors in the country, New York City is the largest market in the United States and attaining those positions there makes them very notable. (By the way, I happen to be "in the business" so I know what I'm talking about) --Oakshade 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently this individual is not sufficiently notable to have won any awards for her work, so I gauge she has not distinguished herself from her fellows. Accounting4Taste 21:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only an associate producer. I found nothing on Google or Google news archives to support a claim of meeting WP:BIO. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a resume posting site. Non-notable in the extreme. Ossified 01:43, 9 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 Horace_Slughorn#Slug_Club. (Nothing substantial to merge, as most of the information is already in that article, other than the minor characters.) Walton^One 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slug Club[edit]

The article has no references, no out of universe information of any kind. As such, it is just a repetition of plot information from, primarily, the 6th Harry Potter book. As that book already has an article which covers its plot, and there are various "minor character" lists the characters could be in, this article can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This article is not notable for inclusion in its current state. However, it is likely that people may go to this article looking for information on it. It should be redirected. Captain panda 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go with that. Judgesurreal777 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to HP6 i ^said 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Horace Slughorn as it is related more to his character than the book as a whole. It is an example of his networking and some of the stuff about its minor members could be toned down. Capitalistroadster 01:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Horace Slughorn. SolidPlaid 01:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Umm - do you perhaps mean "Blank" (the material) then Redirect (in other words, just Redirect)? If the article is "deleted" then it is "gone" and cannot contain the redir code (#REDIRECT Horace Slughorn) or whatever might be chosen. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 01:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - By deleting, the edit history and former incarnations are gone from Wikipedia's servers. Then the article is recreated as a redirect, so that it takes up less space, and cannot be reverted by an editor who doesn't agree with the consensus. SolidPlaid 00:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Horace Slughorn. HP6 is far too broad and general to contain relatively detailed plot elements, so if the Slug Club material gets merged there it will likely evaporate into trivia or drown under the waves of notable plot elements. It is reasonable to expect someone could be seeking wikipedia-information on the Slug Club - especially if God forbid local chapters start popping up in schools around the world. If the wiki-browser gets abruptly sent off to HP6, well that is a lot of reading to work through. The Horace Slughorn article is far more appropriate and capable of being a proper placeholder for the material on his club, and where it can be properly discussed and improved upon. The Slug Club as a general topic for discussion is mildly notable as perhaps "stereotypical" of boarding-school clubs led by an instructor and including certain favored or talented select students - or perhaps somewhat in the vein of the "club" of poetry students in Dead Poets Society. Anyway deletion is not the answer, stranding the information-seeker with no footing on which to obtain the desired knowledge. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 01:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Horace Slughorn per Capitalistroadster. Wl219 01:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Horace Slughorn. His article already mentions it so there's no need to merge. It's a fairly unimportant detail which doesn't require in-depth explanation. faithless (^speak) 03:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever's needed to Horace Slughorn. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article already appears to be redirected to Horace Slughorn#Slug Club, more or less per the current consensus. If no objection - ready to close? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 18:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the AfD is still open, I reverted it. But I agree it should be redirected, the sooner the better. faithless (^speak) 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Moreover, it's basically a plot fork. Axem Titanium 04:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HP6 plot summary, not to Slughorn. Chandler talk 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (if someone wants to later recover information in the editorial process). But although I read all HP books with great interest, I don't even remember this club anymore at all, so this article fails IMO both in-universe and real-world notability and doesn't need to exist at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:36, 13 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. Walton^One 16:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luigi Petrozza[edit]

non-notable subject -- owner of a pizza restaurant and a movie extra; all citations attempting to demonstrate notability are from IMDB and one doesn't check out Accounting4Taste 20:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely not notable enough. Captain panda 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reviews of his acting ability I could find, main mentions seem to be mentions of his bit part on various IMDB clones. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as above. Mystache 15:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails WP:BIO.--JForget 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winner of community awards, well known in the area, bit parts still elicit decent notability, trying to expand article, no need to delete so soon after article creation. hellenica 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to indicate WP:BIO is anywhere near being met. Nuttah68 20:57, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis culture[edit]

This article has problems with sourcing, e.g. two of its sources are wikis. Built on these poor sources is an OR synthesis which seems to be the development of a stereotype. Alksub 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anything relevant in this article is (or at least should be) covered in Marijuana. In addition, this page suffers from lack of verifiability, as well as a bad case of WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Ten pound Hammer, this article is a spot for marijuana users to show off and glorify, which is not encyclopedic at all, any useful information can be found on much more creditable articles so there is no need for this POV article. CrazyRob926 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's hard to deny that there was a "cannabis culture", although mostly it's made up now of middle-aged men and women who can't remember most of it. It's got a start at sourcing, and it's not a candidate for merger back into the Marijuana article (and I doubt it came from there anyway). Mandsford 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the perfect candidate for merger! The music and cannabis section should be merged into Stoner Rock and psychedelic rock, the smoking with paper section should be merged into the wiki article Joint (cannabis), the "With a bong or pipe" section should be merged into Bong and Smoking pipe (non-tobacco), the information under shared smoking is unverifiable by creditable sources and is hardly encyclopedic. Plus basically all the information on this article can already be found on those other creditable articles, so there is no need for this article what so ever. CrazyRob926 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a certain "cannibus culture", but it isn't wikipedia's place to be the first to identify it. AdamBiswanger1 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable and can be fixed. Bearian 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is the masturbation of a small group of people seeking to define a culture around an activity. There aren't articles about drinking culture because such a wide, diverse group of people consume alcohol. The same is true for marijuana. A wide and diverse subset of humans consume marijuana and just because some people have rituals surrounding its consumption does not make it a "culture". This article seems pointless to me: you can write the bong culture stuff in the bong article the pipe stuff in the pipe article, and the joint stuff in the joint article; there are articles on psychedelic and stoner rock already which do a better job of describing the phenomena; user stereotypes can go in the Cannabis (drug) article. If this article wants to remain, the burden is on its authors to site sources which point to the significance of its statements. I don't see this happening any time soon because I don't think that the statements are significant. I cut and pasted some of this argument from my previous posts on the talk page of this article. The Talking Sock talk contribs 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. This is a well known phenomenon.Biophys 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps a rewrite is in order, much more information could be added, but only with proper sourcing. I disagree that there is no culture, considering the ritualistic subtleties associated with marijuana smoking. The article simply needs additional accurate and verifiable information. Josh3580 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve.--Gloriamarie 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No reliable sources after this long on AfD. And the whole thing looks un-encyclopaedic anyway. NBeale 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is original research and not verifiable. I would consider changing my opinion with a substantial rewrite. -- JamesTeterenko 04:11, 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. Carioca 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Michael J. Fox Foundation[edit]

I feel like a complete heel for nominating this, because it is a worthy organisation, but it is also a completely generic organisation, one of hundreds if not thousands devoted to looking for a cure for Parkinson's, and tens of thousands looking for cures for other diseases. It has no independent sources and no evidence of notability. If it were the work of anyone other then Michael J Fox I am absolutely confident we'd not have an article on it. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Should be briefly noted at MJF's article page. Judgesurreal777 20:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and not because I still want my own hoverboard, but because it's a very notable foundation that in a few years of existence has become the largest funder of private research in the US (presumably for Parkinson's). It has raised an "astonishing $80 million", established an industry award, and a host of other activities that set it apart from the run-of-the-mill celebrity hobby foundation. --Dhartung | Talk 20:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung. --Alksub 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Add a few outside references and it's a keep. MarkBul 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung, seems to have sufficient notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(B, itoken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's a 'generic organisation' exactly? Sources attesting to its funding of medical research, e.g. the reason it exists, have been added to the article. Nick mallory 02:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As with Jerry Lewis and muscular dystrophy, when a celebrity lends his name to a cause, it usually increases awareness of that cause. Fox hasn't tried to portray himself as a saint or a victim, and more people are aware now that Parkinson's is more than just a case of shaky hands. Mandsford 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The nominator's statement that "If it were the work of anyone other then Michael J Fox I am absolutely confident we'd not have an article on it" is potentially true... but AfDs do not assess the reason for notability, only whether or not it is present. If an organization is notable for any reason, it meets the criteria outlined for the site, and this one is an example of such. Additionally, Dhartung's comments indicate to me that this group has independent notability anyway. ◄Zahakiel ► 18:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford.--JForget 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets notability so there can be an article on it. Kudret abi 04:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given above.--Gloriamarie 12:02, 13 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kaiser B[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. No signs of distribution other than on YouTube. Alksub 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete a7, non-notable musician, no claims made, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:14, 8 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, obviously a bad faith nomination. Article is B-class and very well sourced. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim von Ribbentrop[edit]

a low ranking nazi member. I think it is failing the notability guidelines as he is not a person of attention User:Iwillallowarguings 8 Sept 2007

Speedy keep appears WP:POINT nomination Agathoclea 19:20, 8 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 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat[edit]

see Wikipedia is not a dictionary -Eric ^(talk) 19:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But sometimes it is for stubs that look like dictionary entries. :) While the top part of the article seems pretty clearly dictionary territory, the part on international law is about a concept, like Embargo or Blockade or Imminent threat. I believe that it could be expanded into a full encyclopedia article and hence is more than a dicdef. Note that there are apparently books on the topic: The Threat of Force in International Law, for instance. --Moonriddengirl 19:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonriddengirl, but I would prefer if the article were renamed to Threat (international law) and the plain dictionary-esque elements removed.--Danaman5 20:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Moonriddengirl, with the move recommened by Danaman5. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd support that move as well. --Moonriddengirl 22:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than a dicdef.--Patrick 22:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may well be content in the article that is of value and presents concepts worth incorporating into another article, but the word "threat" is simply a general term. -Eric ^(talk) 04:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Would you, then, support moving the article to the name Threat (international law) (removing the top part, which is dicdef)? That would leave "threat" as a redirect and meet current consensus. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, or maybe it could be incorporated into a related, existing article such as Imminent threat, Laws of war, Public international law, or some other article dealing with international relations. -Eric ^(talk) 13:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Personally, I think Imminent threat would be better merged into Threat (international law). The former seems more subsection material to me. :) If you're comfortable with the article Threat being moved to Threat (international law) and the dictionary elements being eliminated, the AfD may be withdrawn (since nobody else is currently supporting deletion). (I've never closed an AfD, but I'm pretty sure I could figure out how to do it.) I'd be very comfortable boldly implementing that change myself in that case. If you remain uncertain, however, there's certainly nothing wrong with letting the AfD run its course. :) Other editors may have different views to offer. --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Your ideas sound good to me, but I think you're also right that there's no harm in letting the AfD run a few days. I'm not passionate about the Threat article, by the way, I just like to keep in check the proliferation of articles on what are essentially common, general English vocabulary terms. I think your and Danaman's Threat (international law) idea would be appropriate if that is in fact a term defined by some authority on international law. However a search I did on the word "threat" in several int'l law terminology lists (on the internet) yielded nothing. I did find a few references to the concept of "threat of force" in a public international law context, among them a bookon the subject. That might suggest the new article's title be Threat of force (public international law). -Eric ^(talk) 17:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure the article needs work, but it has potential. Moonriddengirl's suggestions are a good start. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- lots of legal articles are just stubs right now, but the project is working on its backlog. Bearian 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question If you are considering it a legal article, are you then agreeing here with the above suggestions of moving it--minus the dicdef--to a new name (with a legal disambiguation added in parentheses)? -Eric ^(talk) 14:50, 12 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, no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patriots Today[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable information (little or no sources exist on the topic). Also advertising. Possibly merge with New England Patriots. Pats1 18:53, 8 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. Bduke 12:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lowe[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable information (little or no sources exist on the topic). Pats1 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability standards. Strong suggestion that it's self-created. Very few sources. Graymornings 21:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability NBeale 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. Sources seem to fail RS. -- JamesTeterenko 04:14, 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 deleted. Prodego ^talk 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ripps[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability is about the availablity of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame. The Ripps has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The Ripps to develop an attributable article on the topic. The article was speedy deleted twice, and the prod was removed. The contributor to the article has not communicated with anyone about the article and is not using edit summaries to give an idea of what is going on. AfD seems the best way to address this. If there is reliable source material for the article, post it in the article and/or in this discussion. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 and salt, non-notable band, I couldn't find any reliable sources. Should be salted since it's already been speedied twice before. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 20:07, 8 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 already speedy deleted. Bduke 00:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive Linux Textbook[edit]

Zero content, essentially a URL placeholder. Random documents not serving of an article unto themselves, adds nothing beyond the link. Chris Cunningham 18:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The book is no more notable than any other guide to Linux, and has received no coverage in reliable sources.--Danaman5 20:02, 8 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, issue with sources and too subjective for a merge. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prominent figures in the emerging church movement[edit]

Most of the figures on the list probably wouldn't satisfy WP:N. Best to delete and merge what can be salvaged into Emerging church. Blueboy 96 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nominating the following article for deletion, along the same lines:

Delete Big list of red links. Merge any blue links into emerging church movement if appropriate. Artw 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and also how do you classify prominent. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too many problems. Subjective definition, poorly defined (emerging church? says who?), lack of sources, and - well - WTF??? Guy (Help!) 21:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unwikify dead links where notability is well doubted. Keep links to notable articles. Define a WP:HEY and keep. --Emesee 03:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discounted, not a reason for keeping. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both (rather than emerge) I agree that these probably belong back with the emerging church movement... which I'd never heard of until today. Guess it's still emerging. Mandsford 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to emerging church movement rather than delete; some of the people in the list have articles in WP.Biophys 01:31, 12 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. Walton^One 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Trujillo[edit]

Non-notable layout board artist (that's a pretty minor role in film post-production). No sign of reliable third-party coverage (no a list of his credits on IMDb is not what we're looking for) and likely an autobiography. Pascal.Tesson 18:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per notability standards. Few third-party references, likely self-created. Graymornings 21:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per nom and Graymornings. Captain panda 21:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, IMDB not a credible source, other reference is self-created Accounting4Taste 21:55, 8 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. WjBscribe 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Underground[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC; no independent coverage is given. Article is a mere track listing of a compilation album. The reason for sending it here (rather than PRODding) is that a user made a comment on the talk page regarding WP:MUSIC: He argues that the album contains some songs by notable artists, so the compilation album should be notable. I don't agree; that passage in WP:MUSIC is (in my opinion) referring to the artist's original albums, not compilation albums. But perhaps this warrants a broader discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for a band's inclusion. Captain panda 21:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of notability whatsoever. MarkBul 21:39, 8 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 WP:OUTCOMES, towns are inherently notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cappadocia (Italy)[edit]

Little notability with little content at all Marlith ^T/C 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: there's longstanding precendent for the notability of places, especially governmentally-established ones. There's no difference between this and small towns in California near where Marlith's userpage says that he goes to school. Nyttend 17:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, one sentence doesen't say much. I'll take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion Deleters to work on it to save the article from deletion. Marlith ^T/C 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the infobox, there's actually quite a lot of information. Wl219 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES re: geographical places. Wl219 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is not the famous Cappadocia, virtually all towns are considered notable enough to warrant articles on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 18:28, 8 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. — TKD::Talk 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thyella Aigeiras[edit]

AfDs for this article:

There are notability issues here, the cleanup tag has been around for months with nothing happening, the article is also copied off another site with little content at all Marlith ^T/C 17:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barely any text, non notable. Yamakiri 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um... You know you spelled the page name wrong... It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thyella Aigeiras (2nd nomination), you left off the closing comma... Yamakiri 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability standards and scarcity of info. Graymornings 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established in the article. -- JamesTeterenko 04:25, 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. Sandstein 07:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Porous cities[edit]

Unsourced neologism —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Neither of the links even includes the term. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The first external link does expand on the term ? Corpx 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marlith ^T/C 17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - google does not find widespread usage of the phrase. Linkling article is mostly a one-off coing of the term. Artw 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Unsourced neologism" as the nom stated. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are some neologisms that are made up by people who don't have a lot of common sense, and this is one of them. How many besides me thought that a "porous city" would be, duh, a type of city? I read this twice; that's what it isn't, but I can't figure out what it is. Mandsford 13:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To water conservation at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 05:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this is a common term. -- JamesTeterenko 04:30, 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. Sandstein 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Nicole Nelson[edit]

Tragic victim of 9/11 attacks; however, otherwise NOT notable (as per WP:NOT). Should be deleted. Pugnacious 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I'd suggest the deleting admin exercise an extra degree of gentleness in this one, however. The creating editor of this sort of thing frequently tends to be either a friend or family member trying to create a memorial in the wrong place. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment If they cared that much, they'd pay for their own web site to honor her. A Wikipedia page is worth what you pay for it. MarkBul 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe so, but it never hurts to exercise a degree of understanding alongside the firmness. From my experience when these people show up it's the equivalent of getting their dead kid/parent/friend's face airbrushed onto 100 t-shirts and giving them to everyone they know. Memorial through mass, if you will. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I would guess that the creator of this article created it for two reaons: because very few North Dakotans were 9/11 victims and because Minot State University thought this woman notable enough to rename an auditorium after her. I actually don't think we're talking about a family member or a friend memorializing Nelson here. --MatthewUND^(talk) 20:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and not memorial Corpx 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found the page useful and informative. Voyager640 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't a good reason to keep a page. Unless this lady is notable for something aside from being a 9/11 victim, she doesn't warrant a Wikipedia page per "Wikipedia is not a memorial" guideline in What Wikipedia is not. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, not notable other than as a victim, as stated above. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely there would have been a better time of the year to put this up for AfD? -- MatthewUND ^(talk) 19:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any policy on it, but I personally believe Wikipedia shouldn't cease to function in its normal capacity at any point - even on or around the anniversaries of tragedies, and even when said tragedies are being discussed in this kind of manner. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - concur with AllynJ in the STRONGEST possible terms. Are you seriously suggesting we should not delete an unacceptable article because it happens to get nominated at the wrong time of year? Surely you're kidding. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 23:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Obviously that's not what I'm suggesting and I never said that. This article should be deleted and likely will be deleted. I'm simply saying that, since the article has been around for quite a while, I just think it's a little sad to see the AfD pop up on the anniversary. I don't see what harm it would have done to wait a week or two before putting this up for AfD. --MatthewUND^(talk) 23:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't have any notability beyond the tragic circumstances involved. Perhaps add the sentence on the auditorium being renamed for her at Minot State University should be added to said page, though. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Minot State. Possible merge with Cantor Fitzgerald, too. UTAFA 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize to MatthewUND. Matt has a point about the timing of the AFD. The date thing never hit me, otherwise I certainly could have waited a coupla weeks. It makes no sense to withdraw the AFD now given its merits (I know no one has suggested that anyway), but I understand where Matthew, a North Dakotan, is coming from, and I assure him it was not any "flyover" disregard or disrespect to Ms. Nelson or her family. Pugnacious 11:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, Pugnacious. You certainly don't have to apologize to me...I didn't know Ms. Nelson. I just thought it was a little sad to see this come up right now...but I realize you simply hadn't thought of the timing here. For what it's worth, I support the deletion of this article. Thanks again for your response. --MatthewUND^(talk) 22:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a very non-notable individual aside from 9/11--JForget 23:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOT. - JamesTeterenko 04:34, 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. Sandstein 07:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's Angel[edit]

Non-notable book, just published. Article presumably created in order to provide a platform for soap-boxing about Richard Dawkins and The God Delusion, and already turning into a battle-ground after less than 24 hours. This is a very recent small book which does not need a Wikipedia article, and we certainly don't need another platform for an argument over the rights and wrongs of Dawkins' view of religion. Snalwibma 16:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It easily meets the criteria at WP:BK: the article gives links to reviews in major national newspapers, and it seems to be notable enough that Dawkins has written a response to it. So subject meets notability criteria, and the fact that the article may be poorly written or the focus of edit-warring is no grounds for deletion. Thomjakobsen 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - note that the reviews in national newspapers are not so much reviews of the book as opinion pieces by journalists, using the book as a pretext to say nasty things of their own about Dawkins. In each case, Cornwell's book is not the subject of the review but a jumping-off point for anti-Dawkins propaganda. And I fear that the function of this wikipedia article is the same. It's not really an article about a book, but a platform to make yet more swipes at Dawkins, initiated by an editor with a long track record of doing just that! Snalwibma 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They've been filed under "Non-fiction reviews" by three of the UK's most respected broadsheets. Whether you agree with the contents of those reviews is irrelevant; WP:BK doesn't talk of "reviews in major publications that you like and agree with." The fact that it's been the subject of a response and BBC radio discussion by Dawkins himself - within four days of its hardback publication - would be enough to establish notability, even without the reviews. If the article's bad, do something to fix it. Deletion isn't fixing it. Thomjakobsen 01:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you seem to completely misunderstand what I was trying to say. My argument is that those three reviews do not meet the criteria of WP:BK, because they are not in fact reviews of the book but anti-Dawkins soapboxing prompted by the book. I'd make exactly the same argument if the book had been used as an excuse for pro-Dawkins journalism. It's about content, and an argument from authority based on the fact that the newspapers are highly respected is irrelevant. Those three newspaper articles are about Dawkins, not about Cornwell's book. This wikipedia article is the same. It is, in essence, a POV fork set up by an editor who seeks out every opportunity to attack Dawkins. Snalwibma 07:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not an argument from authority: I'm pointing out that the articles appear in reliable sources according to WP:RS, and the fact that they are "triggered" by Cornwell's book - less favourably, "soapboxing prompted by the book" - brings them well above trivial mentions or re-hashed press releases. Add to that Dawkins' own response, and his BBC radio appearance to debate its author, and the notability of the book in its own right seems more than established. If the article has problems - which I suspect is the driving motive behind this AfD - concentrate your efforts on sorting them out, rather than trying to persuade us of the book's non-notability. Or better still, just wait a couple of weeks - the more people read it, the more likely the article is to attract a group of editors who will presumably iron out its existing problems. Thomjakobsen 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surprisingly well received in a rather notable literary/acedemic milieu. [1] Is likely to get more press. Probably could be trimmed/cleaned up. --Evb-wiki 17:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Enforced ReWrite - the book itself unquestionably meets WP:BOOK. Unfortunately, the undue weight and WP:BATTLE/WP:SOAP in this article are quite staggering. In it's current form it seems to be little more than a line-by-line refutation of The God Delusion. Thus, somebody needs to take a big bold axe to about 3/4ths of the article and let the rest stay. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this article will improve as there are more reviews - it's an important and interesting book. I heard about it on the BBC Today Programme, bought it and created the stub article. NBeale 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I took a chainsaw to the article per Bullzeye. Ya said what I was thinking. Cheers. --Evb-wiki 17:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would like to vote delete because this seems like yet another God Delusion parasite, but I don't know how to make a Wikipedia argument to back this up... The WP:BK guideline seems satisfied, as this book does have things that are published as reviews in national newspapers. --Merzul 18:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable book and the article will evolve a NPOV over time. Deleting something because you don't like its message is not what wikipedia should be about. Nick mallory 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since it seems rather unlikely that "Delete" will become the consensus any time soon, let's hope you are right in thinking a neutral POV will evolve, because it sure is bad now. Summary of article: what every chapter says (arguments not covered which makes it look even more biased),positive reviews called just reviews Dawkins quoted at too little length (when, basically, if he's right, Cornwell is a quote-mining liar like a creationist), end of. It may well get better. Let's hope. The book is a repeat-the-refuted-to-death arguments piece of propaganda to too much of an extent as it is - the article needs to be different. In fact, if we were going to put a complaint template on, "like an advertisement" might just have worked were it not for Dawkins getting a minuscule window. If I find any critical reviews, I'll be editing myself. As for whether it should be deleted, it hardly seems possible to get anything deleted nowadays - everyone's got so much experience of stuff getting fixed. Let's hope also no administrator comes along any time soon to shut this down; we're not ready!85.92.173.186 09:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If articles were deleted simply because they didn't have a NPOV at some point in their evolution then there'd be about nine articles on Wikipedia in total, if that. You've obviously got a dog in this fight too. Nick mallory 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Maybe if I'd disagreed with your "keep" position I could understand your reaction, but you're being really unfair. The fact that I mentioned why the book should not make someone get off the fence does not mean I think its conclusions are wrong. All I'm saying is, I hope your prediction is right, because the article needs a lot of shaping up. I thought highlighting what in the article was bad enough for you to have needed to say why it's a problem but not one deserving of deletion would prevent you from directing a "don't delete" argument at me, because I'm not calling for deletion. Obviously, it didn't. I'm going to assume good faith by supposing you didn't see my intention, so we can leave it there, then get back to another comment on the actual topic of whether or not this article should be deleted. The only reason I said we weren't ready for an administrator is that we need longer for enough editors to become aware of this discussion - however much consensus there is behind keep - to maximise the probability that the article will soon be improved. Nick, thank you for helping to keep is all in perspective about when deletion should be used. :)85.92.173.186 17:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack sunshine, I'm merely pointing out that you're saying the article should be deleted because it's been written by someone with a point of view on it, I'm merely pointing out that you also have a point of view on it, just a different one. Your complaint is not that it's a biased article, but that its view doesn't correspond to yours and even if it is biased that's no reason for deletion. The front page of the Afd says that a lot of wikipedia articles start life in bad shape and it's up to editors to improve and source them and that should be tried before deletion, that's the case here. If you want to rewrite it, then rewrite it. In terms of the argument I'd support Dawkins 100% but that's not the point here. It's a book that has been widely reviewed and provoked a lot of discussion, therefore it's notable. What ends up on its page is a product of editors with different points of view fighting it out. If this article had been written by someone criticising the book I doubt you'd be arguing for its deletion. Nick mallory 00:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still obviously not making my self very clear. I wouldn't call for its deletion if it had the opposite slant because, if you read what I'm saying, I'm not calling for its deletion, full stop. That's why I didn't put the word delete in bold. As for what my own personal opinion on it is, I didn't offer one. I said the book is fallacious in its arguments - that's a fact about things like affirming the consequent, ad hominem, post hoc ergo propter hoc etc. If I said the conclusions were wrong, that would be an opinion - people can have serious disagreement about that. In any case, I only brought that up to say: the article is currently in a bad shape in what happen to be similar ways so, while I respect the "not everything biased should be deleted" point (in fact I'm not sure I even know when I would support the deletion of an article after my experience of these discussions), I see your "it'll be all right" prediction as one that needs to come true, whether or not it will. 85.92.173.186 07:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only question here is whether or not the book is notable. It clearly is notable by wikipedia standards because of its reviews and the commentary it's generated. I personally think the books arguments are nonsense and that the current article on it here is rubbish but they're not the points at issue. Good articles emerge through the wikipedia gestalt, we're just deciding whether it should be strangled at birth. By wikipedia standards it shouldn't be. Nick mallory 13:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know why you're adding that as a response to something I said. I'm not calling it too non-notable for an article. I'm not saying soapboxing is a reason for deletion (although the admin DGG thinks that). Well, I think everyone's views are clear enough now, but perhaps I'm wrong yet again. 85.92.173.186 15:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author page pending a critical analysis of the book being published. Compare the quality of the Hitler's Pope article. We're not questioning notability of the author but three rent-a-reviews do not make for critical analysis and do not define the reliability of the subject. A Thief in the Night was published around 2001 - it's still redlinked, and The Pontiff in Winter published in 2002 and it too is redlinked. Superficially the reviews of Cornwell's work seem sporadic and thus Darwin's Angel promotion here ahead of earlier works feels of recentism. Ttiotsw 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be three 'rent a reviews' in the Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian - the three big British serious daily broadsheet newspapers would it? You're arguing that this book shouldn't be included in wikipedia because it's too recent and, at the same time, saying his older books aren't notable because they don't have an article in wikipedia yet? So damned if you do and damned if you don't eh? Nick mallory 00:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appeal to authority and the majority and misrepresent what I have said: merge with the author article not delete the content. The notability of the newspaper publisher does not add magic pixie dust to every word published. We must look at the reviewers in isolation to the publication. To me I feel that they have used the Darwin's Angel simply as a soapbox. I feel they are both partisan and unreliable. Ttiotsw 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I may make one important point, they're not so much rent-a-reviews as rent-a-mentions in longer anti-Dawkins pieces where this book is a springboard or brief topic. 85.92.173.186 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly seems notable, and will only grow further in notability. • Lawrence Cohen 05:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So far, it seems that the consensus is that this book will be notable enough for an article at least in the long term, although maybe merging it with Cornell would make sense - I'm still mulling that over. Consensus also seems to be that it becoming more neutral is likely. Well, I'm no visionary. Let's see if you're right. As soon as I can find material from which to cite stuff so I don't break WP:OR in an edit, I'll try to improve it myself. Of course, all talk of a consensus after two days may be premature, although I must admit I can't see it changing direction. The merge idea is intriguing. I'll comment again if I have any thoughts on it. 85.92.173.186 07:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should it matter whether this is notable or not? The book pleases those that like or sympathise with religion, or dislike Richard Dawkins' militant atheism, and has the opposite effect on those who approve of his views. If people have the right to Wikipedia Dawkins and his books, why can't they allow this one to go up. Perhaps the site could be developed a little more so that Dawkins isn't left with a section that would appear to be criticising him, however there is nothing written that wasn't said by him and it should be allowed to stay. If people are upset about this, don't look at it and grow up- there are plenty of things we hear in this world that we don't want to, it doesnt mean we censor it- including Richard Dawkins aspertions' about Religion and what he calls 'religionists' (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk)

Well, notability is a factor on Wikipedia, yes - it says so in some rules. Part of this discussion is in working out whether it is notable. it looks like the consensus is that it is. I think the concern that led to this discussion being started was that it might not be ready for an article, just as the article Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) was very quickly put up in an AfD discussion. it had been created almost immediately after the episode's title was discovered, but someone feared that, because little else was known, the article was worth deleting then recreating later. In the end, information came in too quickly for that fear to be maintained. In this case, the reason given was that it was being used as a soapbox. Nick mallory has helped to explain where the weaknesses may lie in that basis. I think it might also be said that virtually nothing was initially known about the book too, although now most if not all sections have been summarised. I guess articles put in AfD discussions evolve very quickly once there, because people who can contribute feel a greater pressure to do that soon. I understand your "don't look" idea, although I think this was about more tahn finding the topic shocking; an issue was whether the description of it given here was encyclopaediac, or whether it was likely to become more encyclopaediac. I hope that by answering what I think are sincere questions of yours but which for all I know were instead intended rhetorically I have made you feel more learned on this matter, even if it hasn't done any other good. 85.92.173.186 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soapbox. every book on a controversy that attacks a well-known author is not thereby notable.

Keep Changed to keep on the basis of the improvements in the article. Even though my concerns over the article remain, the books has indeed received notable attention from critics in important publications, and, re-reading them, those articles discuss the book and its argument. Perhaps the supporters of this article will see fit to further improve it by condensing the long numbered summary to a paragraph or two. The content of the article make the intention obvious. If kept, the main section should be removed. The summary makes the article poorer, not better. DGG (talk) 04:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think you may be right. (I stress "may"; see below.) No one has managed to fix the article. I couldn't find anything on Google that would help. Personally, I think these "flea books" as they have been called should really be seen as instances of a social phenomenon that should be covered all in one article, partly because they all say exactly the same stuff. Some Catholic responded in another book to Professor RD. I bet i can guess the material: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, meaning in lives, X requires an intelligence, he doesn't know about theology. Right or wrong, those arguments are carbon-copies. I don't think such a 1-purpose article will get made, and if fit did it would probably get deleted, partly because we already have some articles on books like this in place ... and yet, i can't help but wonder whether Darwin's Angel has the notability, or will gain the increase in notability over time, we had been led to assume. I stand by my earlier statement that this AfD discussion needs to go on for a long time, because it's becoming clear that, at least for me if not for anybody else, my opinions on whether this article should exist are neither one-sided nor static. I even have doubts now about whether it will ultimately be decided that the article should be kept (which before I was sure was going to happen). Who knows how this discussion shall look in a week? 85.92.173.186 10:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the comment above was about the now scored-through position of DGG. 85.92.173.186 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anon. With so much to say please get yourself a WikiPedia ID so that we can interact with you properly. NBeale 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested that recently. Thanks for trying to be helpful. Well, I currently feel the ability to create articles is not worth paying for by allowing people to post comments on my user page when I'd much rather keep things to standard talk pages. For now, I'll stick with things the way they are. (Besides, ironically, one argument people offer as a reason for getting an account is to become more anonymous.) 85.92.173.186 16:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so that people can see how pathetic some books and arguments are. The article needs to be improved (POV removed) fast though.--Svetovid 02:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you say the books/arguments are pathetic, you mean they commit fallacies - which is an objective fact. If you said their conclusion was wrong, that would be an opinion, but you didn't. Hence, I think that's an argument consistent with NPOV. As long as the article gets fixed, I think it makes some sense! ;) 85.92.173.186 07:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a thought. We all seem to have a good understanding of what about this article is considered unencyclopaedic, even if we think it's insufficient for deletion. One particular problem is the way positive descriptions are covered. I have an idea on how that might be amended, which could well help this discussion; but I'm wondering - is Wikipedia policy to put up such ideas on the talk page, the deletion page, or both? Incidentally, I was thinking of either removing the section on them or, perhaps better, inserting an explanation that they are brief comments on the book in articles that cover criticisms of Dawkins in general rather than being reviews. So, i guess I'm asking three questions: should I bring that up on the talk page too, and is it an idea people here like, and does bringing it up (or, for that matter, actually doing it) help with this AfD discussion? 85.92.173.186 11:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take all that to the article's talk page. This page is for discussion of one question only: Should the article be deleted? Snalwibma 11:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. 85.92.173.186 13:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With Anthony Kenny, there is finally a review that satisfies WP:BK: "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." --Merzul 12:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean - he actually points out a reason for what he says. Of the other four people, three just say "it's great, TGD isn't", while the other says something about anaesthesiology/Jesus that I don't get enough to judge. Of course, the fact that WP:BK insists on such critical commentary as Kenny gave doesn't seem to allow us to get those three unsubstantiated assertions out of the article. I'm not sure why quoting a non-argument is any better than a mnore concise statement that they liked it, but that's a matter for the talk page. It seems yet again the article has taken an unimagined turn. 85.92.173.186 19:37, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series[edit]

The article has no outside harry potter references, and is therefore a recitation of the wonderful Harry Potter books. We already have Harry Potter book and movie articles, so this article is duplicative of those, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 16:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 page gives lots info, and I don't think it should be deleted. Kcharles 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but no notable well referenced out of universe information sadly. Judgesurreal777 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability established - Not Harry Potter pedia Corpx 17:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about the fictional books within the Potter books. MarkBul 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not present any evidence of coverage outside of Harry Potter, and thus is non-notable. Most of the fictional books are only briefly mentioned in the Harry Potter series and few play any role in the plot at all. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter newspapers and magazines for precedent. Hut 8.5 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absouloutely no notabilty at all, pure trivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marlith (talk • contribs) 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just so there's no confusion...according to the Manual of Style, list articles which are created explicitly because the listed items would not meet WP:NOTE on their own are acceptable. This means the individual entries here are explicitly not required to meet WP:BOOK, nor should they be deleted for not doing so. I have no particular opinion on the value of Harry Potter, but I feel retention is the only real option if we want to follow policy instead of veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, no "I don't like it" here, just needs to meet notability guidelines. Even grouped together, these are still unnotable. Judgesurreal777 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The individual entries do not have to be notable, but the topic does. The book titles mentioned in the series are no more notable than the meals eaten, shoes worn, etc. This kind of list follows the form of a proper Wikipedia entry without the proper content. As such, all should be deleted. It's not personal, it's business. MarkBul 21:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List_of_fictional_books, replacing the link to this HP article.Kaid100 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Kaid100. Dabomb87 18:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename - Many of the books in the list are non-fiction (textbooks etc.) within the HP series. Many of the books in HP are important to the story, especially Tom Riddle's diary, which was sentient. SolidPlaid 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But are they notable? No... Judgesurreal777 06:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are, since two of them also exist in the real world! See Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. SolidPlaid 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Judgesurreal777 01:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly but merge a sentence or two from The Tales of Beedle the Bard to Hermione Granger. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep but Rename as Fictional books in the works of J. K. Rowling, as ancillary to List of fictional books. Merging is not a good option because List of fictional books is already too large, and several lists have been split off from it, e.g. Fictional books in the works of Susanna Clarke and List of fictional newspapers. The individual entries on the Harry Potter list, and perhaps the entire list itself, may not be notable, but the topic and the catalog of fictional works as a whole certainly is. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it notable? The article has not even one reference outside the books themselves, and is unlikely to gather more than one to sustain itself and meet the notability criteria. If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be kept. Judgesurreal777 18:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I presume then that you will be nominating all the lists of fictional books, including List of fictional books? And the articles in the See also section of that list, such as List of fictional companies and List of fictional media? If so, let's put all those cards on the table and have that discussion. Because unless you think all those lists should go, too, then the Harry Potter list should stay as a subpage of List of fictional books. --ShelfSkewed Talk 20:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't presume that, because I am only concerned now with Harry Potter articles, so I only have to defend this deletion. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I must presume that, because it's the only context in which this discussion makes sense. Considering the Harry Potter list in isolation is short-sighted and fails to address the real issue. If the HP list is deleted, its contents will be—in fact, already have been, by Kaid100—merged into List of fictional books. But that page is oversized, and larger sections get split off to their own pages. But if the result of this AfD is Delete, then splitting off the very large HP list would result in a G4 speedy deletion. A ridiculous sequence of events, I hope you'll agree. So the real discussion here has to be about List of fictional books. If that article is considered sufficiently encyclopedic, then its sublists—of which List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series ought to be considered one—are also encyclopedic, and independent notability for each individual list need not be established. Its notability is implicit in its connection to the larger list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 03:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further note: List of fictional books was prodded about eleven months ago and, obviously, the result was Keep. Read some of the comments there for further arguments pro and con. I see from your edit history that you are coming at this discussion from the perspective of cleaning up the Harry Potter articles, and I have no argument with that goal. But this particular list crosses the boundary into the area of general literary interest. I hope that you and others involved in this discussion will take that into consideration.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we continue to totally ignore the central issue, which is reliable sources, which would provide external assertions of notability. No one has provided even one reference, and shown this indeed is notable enough for its own article. Judgesurreal777 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying not to lose my temper here, but you seem not to be paying any attention at all to the point I'm trying to make—or to any point of view other than your own. So let me make sure I understand your argument here: If a list of fictional books is actually on the page List of fictional books, then it is safe (for the moment, at least). But if List of fictional books is too large, and a section of the list is on its own page, then it's fair game for a separate AfD? This is following the letter of the guidelines without much regard for their spirit. Let me repeat myself: If List of fictional books is encyclopedic—and it has already passed muster in that regard—then so is List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series, and it should be kept. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening, but the argument you are making is not in alignment with wikipedia policies; any sub articles have to be notable as well, and they do not inherit notability from the parent article. If an article grows too big, trim it. If, however, a section of the parent becomes to big AND HAS SUFFICIENT INDIVIDUAL NOTABILITY, it should be made into its own article. All Wikipedia policies apply to articles, and the one policy you reference wont save it from sourcing and notability guidelines. Judgesurreal777 18:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply wrong. This isn't an article per se we're talking about: It's a list. If an item belongs to the list, you can't simply trim it and pretend it doesn't exist. Removing items compromises the completeness of the list. So it is allowable to split longer lists into separate pages. Show me, please, where in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists), or in any other article, it says that separate notability must be established for each separate page of a long list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter that its a list; this is a quote taken directly from official policy on notability; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This list as asserted no notability, and therefore should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly, you quote the nutshell version and ignore the thorny details: "The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." The Harry Potter list is de facto part of List of fictional books. Again, as long as the latter is considered encyclopedic, then so must the former be. --ShelfSkewed Talk 19:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY, the article as a whole must meet notability, and it shows no evidence of doing so, as there are NO references. Judgesurreal777 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then your real issue is with List of fictional books, as I pointed out many replies ago, and this entire argument is moot. So nominate it for deletion and let's have that discussion. But as long as that list is in, then the HP list should stay in. --ShelfSkewed Talk 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this list must assert its notability; that's all thats nominated here, and not any other, it needs its own. Judgesurreal777 21:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, as I've pointed out repeatedly, but you are absolutely determined to consider the Harry Potter list as an isolated article, although that's plainly not the case. I'm done here, since we're both past the point of simply repeating ourselves.--ShelfSkewed Talk 22:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll amplify Bullzeye's quotation from the MOS: "Ideally each entry on the list should have a Wikipedia article but this is not required if it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." These lists of fictional books are fascinating to some of us, as witness the late lamented Invisible Library—much more interesting than lists of minor characters—and thus are notable in the true sense whether or not there are external references. So I think we should stick with the precedent and keep this one. And I've never read or seen any Harry Potter work all the way through. —JerryFriedman 20:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that would also have references and notability, and no one has argued this article has either. I have not nominated it here because it violated the manual of style. Judgesurreal777 21:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Dilbert doesn't have references. It does have "notability" according to the guidelines, though, because of this comment at WP:NOTE: 'For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."' (This is a footnote to the sentence, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:…") I think the same criterion should allow lists of fictitious books; as I said above, I for one find them much more interesting than lists of minor characters. —JerryFriedman 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I concede that this article could, and in general fictional book lists can be notable, but, here's the key, there is no evidence, AKA references, that show that THIS article has any notability that would allow it to have a separate encyclopedia entry. Judgesurreal777 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the key. The context of the note at WP:NOTE is articles without "sufficient sources to demonstrate notability". Such lists are notable anyway. —JerryFriedman 13:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I see what you're saying. I still don't agree with it, but I'll have to come back to that later. —JerryFriedman 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered by the section I linked above: WP:NNC. If the Harry Potter list is considered as part of List of fictional books, then it's not necessary to establish the separate notability of the HP list. --ShelfSkewed Talk 13:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each article must have its own independent notability, and notability is not inherited; that's policy, and we have to follow it. Judgesurreal777 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clear that J. K. Rowling has a very strong attachment to books as plot devices. A book, Tom Riddle's Diary is a prime mover in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and a textbook on potions annotated by "The Half-Blood Prince" is central to the plot of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Hermione is all about reading books, and Rowling has stated that Hermione is like her at a younger age. 66.192.131.55 09:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I like it" is not an argument, even if it is Rowling's. Judgesurreal777 17:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Bullzeye, and ShelfSkewed and others above. First, regarding notability, there are plenty of articles in WP that would fail a "normal" encyclopedia's notability test; there is slightly different standard by virtue of the fact that WP is created by the vox populi. (I count at least 20 different authors who have contributed, so at least that many think it's notable!) Rowling is quite obviously a notable author; her works are significant enough both in quality, length, and critical acclaim to deserve a detailed treatment within WP, including her use of fictional books to bolster the reality of the universe she has created. This is in fact one established literary usage of fictional books in a larger fictional work: to assist in the creation of a realistic, dense, textured world. Second, regarding a merge, from a technical standpoint, merging the list back into the larger List of fictional books would be self-defeating since the discussion page there shows a consensus that LoFB is too long and should be broken up. Third, regarding the complaint of "no notable well referenced out of universe information" - by definition a list is limited to the topic of that list, right? So no out-of-universe items should be required. However, if one wants to be a stickler on this point, then the HP book list should be considered as a sub-article of the larger LoFB, which covers not only American but French, English, Canadian, Japanese, Argentinian, and many other authors. Fourth, if one says this list of fictional books is non-notable one would have to apply the same criteria to all the lists of fictional books including the main LoFB article, and that's already survived at least one AfD. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 23:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that other articles don't meet notability, and that there is a list of fictional books, is not an argument. And, again, I think for the third time, Notability is not inherited. Just because Rowling and the books are notable doesn't mean every character and grassy hill in it are notable too, each part of the world she created, if it is going to have a whole article, needs independent notability. We cannot make this articles notability cling to Rowlings or Harry Potters, it must stand on its own if its going to be its own article. Lets focus on the article at hand; there are no out of universe references, so it fails notability. If anyone wants to assert that it does, great, a conversation about actual Wikipedia policy might take place. But if it doesn't, it doesn't need its own article. Judgesurreal777 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How then do you fit the fact that Rowling has actually published two of the books on the list into your argument that they are not notable? See Quidditch Through the Ages and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. SolidPlaid 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are notable and have their own articles; this article isn't. Again, I am only arguing about THIS article, NO OTHER. Judgesurreal777

Would you support the article being changed to something like The role of books in the Harry Potter series? SolidPlaid 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that would be great, as long as there are some references, say, to how Rowling came up with them, a brief description of the books, and some outside sources suggesting their role within the books, that would be a good idea. However, until there is an assertion of some notability of ANY kind, this article should be brought foreword for deletion. Judgesurreal777 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not as I understand it. WP:NOTE twice encourages people who find possibly non-notable articles to look for evidence of notability, and says, "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context. Otherwise, if deleting:" [procedures for deletion]. So the article should not be nominated for deletion till there has been a search for evidence of notability, preferably with the potential nominator joining in. At least that's how I read it. I was wrong about a part of that guideline I cited before, though, so maybe I'm wrong here too. Any thoughts? —JerryFriedman 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the guidelines call for a notability check before deletion commences to make sure a notable topic isn't eliminated. But isn't it strange that dispite all off this passionate support for the article, not a single real reference has emerged? That's a very bad sign for the article. If anything is found, probably a minor mention, it would fit into a "Universe of Harry Potter" article. Judgesurreal777 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, no notability per WP:FICT. I also think that List of fictional books should be bombed but that's for another day. Axem Titanium 03:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know. If Wikipedia's guidelines don't allow a fascinating and factual article like that, the guidelines need to be changed. —JerryFriedman 05:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry to repeat myself, but I hope whoever wants to do the "bombing" will start by looking for references that they think will improve the article. —JerryFriedman 14:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one very good potential reference buried at the bottom of the (very long) page: George A. Kennedy's Fictitious Authors and Imaginary Novels in French, English and American Fiction from the 18th to the Start of the 21st Century (2004). Unfortunately, unless one has access to a library copy, it is neither easy nor cheap to acquire. I would also point out that the Library of Congress has a specific classification for "Imaginary books and libraries". --ShelfSkewed Talk 14:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet it's no problem to get that book by Interlibrary Loan. I've gotten all kinds of obscure stuff that way. (Sorry to intercalate, but my response was directly to the one above.) —JerryFriedman 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the MOS section cited above by JerryFriedman regarding lists as exceptions to notability requirements: "The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles: an example of this is List of minor characters in Dilbert." This entire section on stand-alond lists is entirely applicable to this discussion and as such it's worth reviewing in full, which you can do here. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability is the presence as significant motifs in these extremely notable books. They will most of them be findable in the reviews and the publish literature.DGG (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, The Harry Potter Companion by Acascias Riphouse (if you believe that) has a list of the books in the HP series, with comments on them? It starts on p. 55, and if you want to see all of it at Google Books, you have to be sneaky: try searching the book for an author's name that's early in alphabetical order, such as "Bathilda Bagshot". The book bills itself as unofficial, and I take it to be an independent source. It provides a couple of sentences about each fictitious book. However, I'm not planning to add that material to List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series because it would be rather fancrufty, in my opinion. The classified list of titles is much better. I'm not even planning to add the reference, since I dislike references that are just there to prove "notability", but I'm citing it in case anyone needs to add it in an attempt to avoid deletion.

Also, in case it comes in handy, the trick that finally worked was to search Google Books for one of the invented titles instead of for phrases such as "fictitious book". (This procedure will also find another HP source, which I haven't looked at.) —JerryFriedman 05:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, total, we have 2, maybe 3 references that aren't accessible and are by unknown authors...somehow, that's not promising... Actual good articles, or even featured articles need dozens of references, and we can't even really link to ONE. Judgesurreal777 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other book at Google Books (snippet view only, unfortunately) that lists fictitious HP titles is A Muggle's Guide to the Wizarding World: Exploring The Harry Potter Universe by Fionna Boyle.

None of these books is inaccessible. As I mentioned above, you can get just about anything by interlibrary loan, and two of them are even available on the Web! Only one of them is by a pseudonymous author.

The question is not what's promising, though I feel sure that a search of Amazon would turn up more.

Nor is it getting the article "Good" or "Featured" status. However, as a result of this debate, I found out about a featured "list of fictitious things" article, which probably a lot of people here knew about, namely Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. This is obviously the result of a lot of hard work and is thought of as setting a standard for how such an article can demonstrate its own notability (as mentioned at its Talk page). However, the great majority of the references in this article are to the game and supporting and promotional materials, including an article in a fan magazine that appears to get much of its information from interviews with the game designers. All that is as you'd expect. I'm sure that not dozens, but less than one dozen of the references of this featured article are really independent. The standard is lower for simply retaining an article in Wikipedia.

I don't know why you mention what we can link to—that's not required. However, we can link to the relevant page (54) "Riphouse" book by using the trick I mentioned. That page has a (long) URL if a link is desired.

Finally, you appear to expect that you can nominate an article for deletion and have people fix it instantly. I have an alternative suggestion. Put a notability tag on the article and join in a discussion of what solving the problem would entail. If others agree that the article needs references, work out an agreement on what would be satisfactory and when it could reasonably be provided, including the delays of interlibrary loan and such things, not to mention our non-WP lives. You might want to participate in the search yourself. (But I've already found two books and ShelfSkewed has mentioned a third, which I think is plenty, so I'll be doing other things.) If for one reason or another, you don't see what you consider sufficient evidence of notability, then it would be time to renew this nomination for deletion, which you could support with the statement that people didn't want to look or looked but didn't find anything. This may be time-consuming, but deleting an article is a drastic step, especially one that some people are, as you note, passionate about. Meanwhile, I'll try to get clarification the apparent conflict on the heritability of notability (unless someone has done it first), and maybe some here will want to join that discussion. —JerryFriedman 04:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, it was brought here because I believe it can't be fixed, as it has insufficient notability. If it is really so notable, find some references and we'll build an article together that meets notability. As for now, this article isn't worth saving. But you think with more time references could be found? Judgesurreal777 06:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've already been found, and I think more references probably could be, if people want to look for them. There seems to be a good-sized secondary literature on HP, and from what people have been pointing out, the fictitious titles are important to the atmosphere and sometimes to the plot. Some critic(s) may well have said that. However, as ShelfSkewed mentioned to me in Talk, finding more references would probably involve JSTOR and other things which would be time-consuming for many people. —JerryFriedman 04:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's extremely difficult to search for (books AND "harry potter") because, as can be imagined, the word books occurs in nearly every article. SolidPlaid 10:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Potential references can be found:

Adney, Kristine Karley: "From Books to Battle: Hermione's Quest for Knowledge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." In: Topic: The Washington and Jefferson College Review 54 (2004), 103-112.

Pierce, Jennifer Burek: "What's Harry Potter Doing in the Library? Depictions of Young Adult Information Seeking Behavior in Contemporary Fantasy Fiction." In: Moore, Penny et al. (Eds.): From Aesop to E-Book: The Story Goes On ... IASL Reports, 2004: Selected Papers from the 33rd annual conference of the International Association of School Librarianship, and the 8th International Forum on Research in School Librarianship, Dublin, Republic of Ireland, 17-20 June 2004. Erie, Pa.: IASL, [year?], 73-82.

Stover, Lynne Farrell: "Social Studies: Quidditch Quizzes and Beastly Books: Using Harry Potter to Teach Primary and Secondary Sources." In: School Library Media Activities Monthly 22:2 (2005), 21-24.

Stover, Lynne Farrell: "Library at Hogwarts: Classification, Alliteration, Imagination and Prolongation." In: School Library Media Activities Monthly 17:6 (2001), 28-29.

Source: Harry Potter Bibliography at Viola Owlfeathers Harry-Potter-Kiste: Ein Harry-Potter-Lexikon. --ShelfSkewed Talk 15:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There are no reliable sources in the article. However, it sounds like reliable sources can probably be found. What would make the list of books any less notable than the fictitious author? -- JamesTeterenko 04:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To reiterate what others have said: All of the content of List of fictional books within the Harry Potter series would be in its own section on List of fictional books except for the fact that the Harry Potter list is long and the main list is many times longer. If this article containing the Harry Potter list were deleted, its contents by definition would have to be transfered into the main list. Thus, this discussion should hinge on one question: Is List of fictional books an acceptable article? If the answer is yes (as previous discussions would seem to indicate), then there's no reason to continue discussion here, as the issue is already settled (and whether the answer is yes or no, there's no real reason to keep talking about it here until that question is decided). The only question that can rightly be decided here is whether the contents of this page should be merged into the big list. (As a side note, I don't believe the articles should be merged. The main list is already way too long to be contained on one page, and there is even a proposal to split it further into smaller pages.) — $wgUser 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only legitimate question is one of reliable out of universe sources to establish notability, and so far, we still have established none. On that point alone, the article has failed and should be deleted; and if it does establish notability, there are no arguments to get ride of it. Judgesurreal777 05:51, 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. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Music Machine[edit]

Non-notable, not much assertion of notability, does not meet WP:CORP. Proposed deletion a while ago was part of a disruption and reverted.[2]. Delete. Han-Kwang (t) 11:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. It has no notable bands signed (based on the lack of articles for them) Computerjoe 's talk 21:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This entry meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance, because one of the musicians on this label (Merzbow) meets the criteria for notability. 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a pointer to the applicable policy? All I can find is Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Notability which points to Wikipedia:Notability (music) which does not mention notability of a label by association. Han-Kwang (t) 19:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... Aren't all record labels on Wikipedia notable 'by association' of the notable artists involved? 76.99.4.15 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, at least not exclusively. The record label, like any company, should be subject of independent publications as described in WP:CORP. Otherwise, we would have to add articles about the secretary, the lover, the sound engineer as well for every famous person or musician. Han-Kwang (t) 23:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:10, 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, Chick Bowen 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They get passing mentions on Google, but not articles about the label itself. MarkBul 17:20, 8 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 independent sources to verify notability. KrakatoaKatie 19:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coase's Penguin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coase's Penguin

This article seems to be a summary of a published paper. There are no independent reliable sources characterizing any importance or significance of Coase's Penguin. Rather than being the topic of reliable sources, the essay seems to be reference material that would be cited among many other references by downstream authors. There does not seem to be enough reliable source material on Coase's Penguin that is independent of Coase's Penguin for this article to meet Wikipedia:Notability. Although the article does not belong on Wikipedia, Wikisource might be an appropriate location for this article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cited 73 times in Web of Science. I do not find that such an astounding figure as to warrant an article for an individual scientific paper. Merge into the article for the author. Most notable academics have several papers in this range. I would not like to start the practice of considering papers notable unless there were actual evidence that they were viewed as landmarks. I don't see it here. DGG (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:19, 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, Chick Bowen 15:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notablility I can find. MarkBul 17:22, 8 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. Sandstein 07:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.Binz[edit]

No evidence of notability, no sources are cited, article is written as an indiscriminate list of features. -- intgr [talk] 15:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but cleanup. Removal of the WP:SPAM and a few rewrites would produce a decent article. ~Cr∞nium 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established through reviews/coverage. Corpx 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Corpx. No notability established. Captain panda 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed. Simply not notable at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 05:33, 10 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. DS 15:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Yaying[edit]

Complete hoax that had a contested prod that the article author removed. There is absolutely no historical record I can find that shows that this person existed. It should also be noted that article author's credibiility is exceedingly suspect, as the article, originally written, claimed that the person was a Han Dynasty eunuch, and after it was shown that that couldn't possibly true, the author changed it to Tang Dynasty. Delete. (I would have speedy deleted it myself if I could find a category that fit, but I couldn't. --Nlu (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this person existed, looks like a hoax. Hut 8.5 15:32, 8 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 to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Jats[edit]

Confused, biased and often frankly bizarre POV fork. The article is basically an essay aiming to show the Jat people are Aryans, using evidence such as the conclusions nineteenth-century anthropologists came to after measuring people's noses. Tagged for cleanup, but utterly unsalvagable Lurker (said · done) 15:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lurker, I am sure you mean well.Still, in the science of Anthropology, measuring various parts of the body, skulls,cephalic bones, nasal index, etc is a standard methodology. In Archeological Anthropology, these type of techniques help determine what people looked like in past, when all that we have a few bones and skulls to go by.

I agree that the article needs improvement, cleanup etc.

If we simply delete, following your sugestion, we must also then logically delete the article on Anthropology, Aryan, and other related articles.

Ravi Chaudhary 14:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a surplus of information on the Jat page. This is supurflous. MarkBul 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep with Enforced ReWrite - I concur about the article being POV. But we're not here to judge the content, only the topic itself. If the article was rewritten I think it might well be worthy of keeping, but only if it proves more than Jat can offer. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough information on the Jat people page to warrant another article. Most of the current article should be blanked, but some of it is good, and there's no reason why the people who wrote it shouldn't get credit for their work. Isaac Pankonin 22:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - This article is about one of the ancient clans about whom ancient books mention a lot but the midieval history seems biased due to certain reasons and has either not mentioned about these people or very less has been written. It has got very valuable references which will be lost. The discussions an Jat people article led to splitting the page and now there is move to delete, which seems to be fatal. We will loose the purpose of Wikipedia getting informattion about the origin of the people of the world. Deletion will serve no purpose. Article has been recently created from Jat people so needs further improvement by adding more info. It is necessary to keep. I recommend a Strong Keep. --burdak 14:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A Pertinent Historical Investigation The origin of an ethnic identity is a valid historical search. Parts of such historical investigations are inevitably dependent upon the narrative of the ethnic group, especially in case of really old, even ancient, cultures. I suspect that some people are put off by the use of the word "aryan" and by ethnic distinctions based upon facial features, and tend to relate it to totalitarian European ideologies. That is an absurd projection on the Asian past of a Euro-centric viewpoint. --DrBrij 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to say why the article should be kept, or make unproven ad hominem assumptions? Lurker (said · done) 18:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a valid historical topic and there are (or were, as I remember) many references to substantiate the narrative of the cultural identity. Your original assertion that "The article is basically an essay aiming to show the Jat people are Aryans." and your background suggest an inherent bias which I referred to above. An "essay" to show that the Jat people are the same people who were referred to as Arya in olden times is a perfectly valid article, if the references back up the various notes included in it, as they were here. More references might be valuable, but the validity of the article is too strong to sacrifice it at the altar of political-correctness. Is there anything in this article that is contradicted by objective analysis? I would like to see your evidence against it then. Biometric numbers are perfectly valid for anthropological studies - such as in determining whether a skull found was Native American or Viking in origin. --DrBrij 20:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying to say that the article is fine the way it is, and the majority of us here disagree with that. It must represent all points of view, which means that there has to be a section that says Jats are not Aryan and they come from somewhere else. Also, during these discussions please refrain from personal attacks about heritage and remember to assume good faith when dealing with others. The fact of the matter is the article needs to change. I'm against deleting it, but that doesn't mean I think it's a credit to Wikipedia right now. Isaac Pankonin 05:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that "Jats are not Aryan.." has to be based on evidence from well researched references. No such references are ever provided. On the other hand, the arguments for the opposite viewpoint were provided in the references. "Arya" was a cultural term, and not a racist term as understood by the Europeans and others in the west. I was merely suggesting that people not react reflexively to the term when it is used in its original context. Besides, calling this article a POV without providing undisputed references for the contrary position is itself a mere POV. --DrBrij 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article is overflowing with POV, racist speculations and pseudoscience. There are several different theories and no unanimity among scholars on the origin of the Jats. The plain fact is that their origin is really unknown, though heavily contested. I suggest a section in the main Jat people article where the various theories can be outlined briefly would be sufficient. There is no need at all for separate article on this subject.John Hill 06:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and re-structure The only problem that I see with this article is that the language and structure do not appear to be as polished as they do in peer reviewed journals. Perhaps some courageous and educated contrarian can write a subsection to this article and show that the name and clan studies, cultural patterns, length and continuity of habitation by Jats etc. - how all these studies are somehow unworthy of being used for the thesis of this article. There is no point in assuming that the Indo-Aryans vanished without a trace. --DrBrij 23:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - It is clear from discussions on Jat people and allied articles that John Hill is simply biased. History has some content of speculation. At least Indian history is not a science. I do not know of which history John Hill is talking which is a pure science. The article contains studies which are by reputed authors and well published. If the argument of John hill is to be considered we will have to delete a number of articles from Wikipedia. That will be a great loss. A similar parallel Indian article on Wikipedia is Origin_of_Rajputs. It has no in-text references and the origin is purely stated to be legendary i.e. the clan created from fire with the help of mantras, it contains a lot of POV also. Similarly Origin of the Albanians in which text itself states that it is disputed. There is also Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty, which has been much debated and contains POV, similarly Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis article which is locked for editing due to disputes. Origin of the Armenians which is based on legendary story of bible. Dispute of origin does not imply that we should delete it. We have articles on origin of social groups like Origin of Pallava, Origin of ezhava caste, Origin of the Basques, Origin of the Nilotic peoples, Theories on the origin of Croats, Theories on the origin of the Serbs. Then why to delete Origin of Jats? Facts are in offing, the article is growing. All the theories of origin of Jats should be kept in this article. Large number of clans have merged into Jats fold. Some of them were of Indo Aryan origin where as some are of Scythic origin. Both these theories were there in the Jat people article. The Jat people article was long and there are suggestions to split it. With this view the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats article was created to highlight this aspect only. Its heading was changed to Origin of Jats. Now it looks imbalanced. Either we should keep its original name i.e. Indo-Aryan origin of Jats or if Origin of Jats is to be kept as such it needs more informations which are there in the Jat people and can be imported to make it balance. So instead of deleting we should expand it. --burdak 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article [[Origins of the Jats}}, was previously titled-Indo Aryan Origin of Jats.

The article is a is actually a sub article, part of the main article Jats or Jat People, which contains a section -Origin of the Jats- see table of contents.

As with any book, article, research paper, when witing about a subject as extensive as the Jats, the subject needs to be divided into manageable chunks.

One of the sections, chapters- divisions will be: ‘The origins of the Jats’ OR ' THEORIES OF ORIGINS OF THE JATS'

This subject itself then has to be divided in to the various theories that exist and are being developed.

Some of the questions that arise are:

1 Are the Jats autochons of the Indian subcontinent, as some historians suggest?

2. Are they of foreign origin? If so from where?

3. Are they ‘Aryans’ part of the supposed invasion of the Indian subcontinent’ by Aryans? Then who were the Aryans/ were they Europeans? Were they central Asians? Is the term ‘Aryan ‘appropriate to denote a ‘race’? That in itself is a subject on which much academic and real blood has been spilt, - e.g Nazi Germany and as yet no satisfactory answers have come forward,

4. A number of historians have suggested they are of ‘Scythian’ origin?

5. Then there is mythology- is the jats descended form the ‘locks of Lord Shiva.

6. Were the Jats the same people, who are the subject of the Vedic traditions- the Rig Veda etc?

7. Are they the subject of, Are they of the clans and people referred to in the Indian epic- the Mahabharat.

8. Do they have any relationship to the Goths, the Huns, the Gaut, Geats, Gutar, and the Jutes of Scandinavia?

Each of the topics and questions can and is the subject of much research and historical writing. Every year more and more papers on the subjects are coming out.>

Out of all these and more questions: come the question, (as anyone writing a paper is familiar with) do you jumble it all together or split it, and use an index with sub indices?

The jats article has done that in terms of basic structure see below:

Contents [hide] • 1 People

• 2 Demographics

• 3 Distribution

• 4 Background

o 4.1 Theories of origin

o 4.2 Indo-Aryan origin

o 4.3 Indo-Scythian origin

o 4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks

The name of the sub Article Indo Aryan origin of Jats then should then stand as such, but in the body it should be made clear that it is a sub article.

Should the article itself be deleted?

Well if it is a sub article, on a valid line of inquiry which much literature exists, as it does, then the answer is an obvious NO.

The term Indo Aryan and Aryan exist,

A brief search in the wikipedia shows the results as below: . Indo-Aryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Indo aryan)

Jump to: navigation, search

Indo-Aryan refers to:

• Indo-Aryan languages

• Indo-Aryan migration

• Indo-Aryans, the various peoples speaking these languages

First Plumbline Apologetics[edit]

1) The article is about a "cult buster" who is not notable.

2) The Website is not professional.

3) The information is biased and not neutral.

4) The User (Firstplubline) is advertising for his book business.

This page should be deleted. Sapienz 15:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like an ad to me. Lurker (said · done) 15:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator was blocked tonight for posting personal identifying information about another user. As they have been involved in extensive harassment of that user, who may be involved with this organisation but who has never edited the article, I'm tempted to believe that this is part of a continuing campaign of harassment rather than a serious attempt to sort out the obvious issues with this article. Orderinchaos 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ~~While there is a prod tag on this article (along with others), it does not appear that the article has been properly nominated—there is no AfD tag on it.~~ --Evb-wiki 16:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I swapped the tags. It is now nominated. Notwithstanding, the pov/point war suggested above, the article is unsourced and appears to be WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no notability for this group Corpx 17:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, previously blanked by article's creator (and only significant contributor) but that blanking was reverted for some reason. Should be a speedy delete candidate. ugen64 17:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no assertion of notability, and no evidence for it. MarkBul 17:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I attempted some cleanup of the article to try and address points 3 and 4. Voyager640 17:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ad. Æe tlr Cre ejl 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All Google searches show they are self promoting, plus the name of the originator of this article is "firstplumbline" which is is advertising. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.149.78.242 (talk) 07:00, 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 delete and editorial redirect to Megastructure. The arguments that this term is supposedly widely used in sources does not address the WP:WINAD issue, and since these sources are not cited, we cannot ascertain their reliability or even, per WP:V, that they use "supertall" in the same sense as this article. Sandstein 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supertall[edit]

The article admits this term is a made up word in the blogosphere. It also admits there is no official definition of this term. WP:NOT wikipedia is not for things made up at school one day, or on a blog one day.Due to this it fails WP:V before it even gets going. If there is any useful information in regards to some of the individual subjects (skyscrapers, radio towers, etc) that isn't already on the parent articles this can be moved prior to the closing of the AfD. Picking a redirect would be impossible because it does cover many individual topics hence why I'm nominating the term itself for deletion and not suggesting a split. Crossmr 15:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see nothing to get it past WP:NEO Corpx 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete second line in the lead says it all: "It is especially common jargon among skyscraper-enthusiast bloggers." Not a single reference to suggest that, either... Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, term has been in formal use since at least 1984 (NYT, Phil Inq and remains in current use (Google News, Google News Archive. At worst merge and redirect to skyscraper. --Dhartung | Talk 20:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That first link is "supertail"...the rest look fine. But the article will need massive clean-up and rewrite to conform with sources.--Crossmr 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the New York Times has trouble with OCR. Google, however, was unfazed. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, becauser term appears to be used by various people to describe "supertall" skyscrapers and as these structures continue to be built, article will likely continue to grow and develope. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, term is used in various sources per above. These sources should be cited in the article. --Hdt83 ^Chat 21:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is used enough to qualify for inclusion. Captain panda 21:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Often used in reliable news media. User:Krator (t c) 23:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, "supertall" is not the most imaginative name for a structure of great height, but I'm not sure what to expect from a "skyscraper enthusiast blogger", and I guess not everything is going to be scraping the sky. This is a good start for an article. Maybe the author can take some of the "skyscraper books" off of her supershort bookshelf and add some citations. Mandsford 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If supertall can only be found in direct reference to taller than usual skyscrapers, the rest of the material from the article needs to be removed.--Crossmr 14:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, the article is rife with WP:OR and WP:POV problems, despite basic notability. One of the issues here seems to be claques for various specialized structures like masts; there was a huge pool of unnotable mast articles that was AFD'd last year. I don't know if the "masties" are still active, but there is much less written about masts than about skyscrapers. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:I agree that supertall doesn't warrant it's own page. Skyscraper exists, I like the idea of possibly a redirect as stated by Dhartung. Other pages specific to an example of a "supertall" structure most certainly label themselves as "world's tallest bridge, tower, building, dam, etc and whatever. Even second tallest, third tallest, tallest until, and tallest since, tallest planned - are popular in wik articles and are definitely worth noting. But an article about an adjective used to describe these buildings? I recommend possibly including "supertall" as a wiktionary entry only as it really is a vocabulary lesson at best, not encyclopedic (it already exists in very rudimentary form [[3]]) All that being said, it can't be properly referenced because its an adjective, anymore than me saying, for example, "I found my own (trust me, it's unusual) last name on 23,000 google sites, therefore I should have my last name as a wik article because of it's extensive use for the last 67 years, blah blah blah." How do you cite an adjective? Are any of the citations dictionaries? Or are they just redirects to really tall structures? Just because it's used by a mag or rag somewhere does not justify an encyclopedic article. And what about the subjectivity? To my 18 month old son or Verne Troyer , everything including the kitchen counter is supertall. Is it even an earned label? Is it given officially? "You are now Supertall", almost like being knighted. The only sources here are to the NYT's "supertail buidlings" (no kidding), 1984 "dreamy-eyed" article about futurama style buildings that don't exist yet, and to google searches that used "supertall" and "skyscraper" as search words instead of just "supertall", and one of the google links actually says "did you mean super-tall?" I say delete, or at best redirect to skyscraper Keeper76 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak keep. I was the one who originally removed Crossmr's prod of this page... I thought it deserved more consideration as a sort of summary-of-tall-things page, even if a page just about the word supertall wasn't appropriate. I've been thinking about it since then, and I just can't decide for sure what should be done with it. It needs a lot of work on style and referencing, and there's the question of whether the word is used enough for it to actually be what we call the page, but I'm still inclined to think that such a summary page should exist to guide users to the more specific pages, and this seems like a worthwhile start. Pinball22 16:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Having Googled 'Super Tall Building' I see that the term (often hyphenated 'Super-Tall') is pretty widely used in news articles and in some architectural/construction sites. If kept, article clean-up and better referencing would be needed. VJDocherty 10:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and not encyclopaedic. NBeale 23:00, 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 speedy delete (A7) by Maxim. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 18:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnis Group SA[edit]

Fails WP:CORP; no secondary coverage known. PROD was contested in September 2006 by the original author, User:Ogsa, which hints towards WP:COI. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A7 or G11 - take your pick. It's an obvious promo article (a pitch phrase and a link) for a non-notable company (simply operating in Libya does not assert WP:NOTE. So it double fails. I've CSD tagged it. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:42, 8 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.--Kubigula (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parent connect[edit]

Contested prod. Subject appears to be non-notable, and a Google search does not turn up any third-party references. Salmar 14:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not asserted (or backed by refs) and very little content apart from OR claims. Han-Kwang (t) 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN, WP:OR, and provides no WP:RS. Article is filled with unverifiable claims of reliability and WP:POV bolstering. --Evb-wiki 16:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and rules per Evb-wiki. Bearian 23:51, 11 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. Sandstein 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin stoner[edit]

One of the more interesting bios I've read lately. However, while this lady received 3.1% of the vote as a Libertarian candidate in a local Michigan election in 1998 and was interviewed as a member of a local militia group, it is her dominatrix activity that (um) dominates her internet-published autobiography. Evb-wiki 14:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. The article itself appears to be an WP:AUTO and obvious WP:COI. --Evb-wiki 14:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage from anyone Corpx 17:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The various coverage of her appears noteworthy to me. Voyager640 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: G11 - she starts hawking the book (with a link to her website) in the first sentence. The rest is just standard spam-article fluff to try and make her sound more important. What's core here is that she's obviously using the article primarily for self promotion. Speedy G11. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 17:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7 and G11: I agree with Bullzeye--this is a blatant vanispamcruftisement. Not to mention that minor-party candidates in local elections fail WP:BIO. Blueboy 96 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete standard nn web/bio. Jimfbleak 19:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COI Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute but non-Notable NBeale 23:01, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Lynx[edit]

Does not meet notability guideline WP:BIO Mathew5000 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a speedy as per WP:CSD#A7 Chris DHDR 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not a candidate for speedy (there is some assertion of notability IMO), her roles seem to be rather minor.--Sethacus 20:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seem to fails WP:BIO. Carlosguitar 20:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's played major roles in 2 films that satisfy WP:N, although nobody has written a Legion of the Dead article yet. Granted that one's most memorable for how bad it was, and how good Ms. Lynx looks nude. Still puts her at least borderline. Fairly long modeling career, which adds a little. Released 1 CD which it is claimed charted. Puts her at least 1/2 way to satisfying notability for music. and highlights the biggest problem with expanding the article. It's a Persian language music cd. She's only given 1 English language interview that I can find any reference to, in the June 2001 issue of "Fashion" magazine. She seems to have much better coverage in Persian. However, I think even what can be documented at least marginally meets WP:NHorrorshowj 10:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: More people saw her in the one episode of The West Wing (where she played "Miss World") than in Legion of the Dead. I'm not convinced that a long modeling career is any more of a claim to notability than a long career as (for example) a bus driver. At present the article mentions the CD she released but does not claim that it was for a major label, and does not claim that it charted. Also is there an article on her in the Persian-language Wikipedia? --Mathew5000 08:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Is being a model less of a claim to notability than being a football player in a minor league? Look at the players for teams like Milton_Keynes_Dons_F.C., Wycombe_Wanderers_F.C. or similar teams. I love the sport, but not even I have ever heard about the teams, not to talk about the players. Claudia Lynx is much more well known than any of them.
    - Comment: If you want to list any of those football players for deletion I'd support you, but it isn't the issue at hand. --Mathew5000 12:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: According to Wikipedia policy, those footballers are notable. I find it strange and I'm glad you agree. As you say, that's not the issue at hand although few of them are as notable as Claudia Lynx. Just being any model is not enough for being notable, as I understand it, but she has had a reasonably succesfull career as an actress as well. Not that Legion of the Dead is a great movie, but landing the lead role in it is still more than 99% of all actors accomplish. This, together with more minor roles in other productions, such as West Wing and musical career with a following in the Persian diaspora makes me doubtful to deleting the article. JdeJ 14:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:56, 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, Mackensen (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very surprised by the nomination. Has played the major role in two films that are notable, has had a minor role in a very popular tv-series. As Wikipedia lists footballers playing as low as in the fourth division in England, this nomination looks positively absurd in comparison. JdeJ 13:19, 11 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 both. Neil ム 11:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Blue Bowl[edit]

nn college football rivalry, no sources that indicate why this rivalry is important, Delete Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Battle for the Bones as well for the same reason as above and that playing several games doesn't indicate a rivalry. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Black and Blue Bowl, strong keep Battle for the Bones. I think Battle for the Bones is one of the better-looking rivalry articles; it is sourced, hence the strong keep. My only issue with Black and Blue Bowl is that it cites no sources, but that can be fixed. Since there was no tag indicating the lack of sources, I say let the article stand. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that is the sources are the home pages of the football teams and battleofthebones.com which isn't reliable. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just checked google, nothing reliable at all for Battle for the Bones (only 29 direct google hits, not including duplicates, mainly the battleofthebones website, a college newspaper and wikipedia). There is a cheat to get the Black and Blue Bowl for NCAA Football 08, but I can't find more info on the rivalry, again little in google to work with. WP:V is a issue. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - USA Today article: [4]. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a one liner very trivial mention, doesn't indicate why the rivalry is important. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It certainly establishes that it's a named rivalry with a trophy. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - It still has WP:V concerns, one source doesn't indicate an article intantly Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redistribute any useful information on relevant articles either for the universities or sports teams themselves. I think rivalry articles are extremely dubious, as the extent of rivalry is often highly subjective and opinionated. The oxford-cambridge boat race is an example of a suitable university rivalry, this I do not think qualifies by comparison. Its effectively just a list of game outcomes, minimal encylopedic use and questionable noteability. WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many such yearly rivalries in American college football, many going back 100 years. It would certainly be easy to get references for Army-Navy and Michigan-Ohio State that would satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements. The problem is when you get down to minor programs and shorter rivalries. MarkBul 21:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was my point with the Black and Blue Bowl. There ought to be sources out there. I'd have preferred longer than a week to find them. —C.Fred (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 02:45, 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, Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one, delete the other On Black & Blue, it's a long rivalry, but doesn't this look like a fake trophy (http://home.earthlink.net/~sparkomemphis/black.and.blue.bowl.html)? It's on an "unofficial" website. On the official sites, "Black and Blue" seems to get more mention on the Mississippi side than on the Memphis side, but not much at that. The other one has only a few googlehits, and may be like the "roosterbowl.com" article that got plucked last month. Mandsford 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Black and Blue fails WP:V with no sources despite the extra time to add them to the article. Bones has a single source to show that the name exists but, as the source states, this is a new trophy with no history behind it. The core facts can be added to the teams articles as a post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan 02:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on Black and Blue Bowl, delete Battle for the Bones. Two years does not a rivalry game make. Caknuck 04:41, 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. DS 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Pro Wrestling[edit]

Looks like someone's overheated fantasy wrestling company. Much name-dropping (Bill Gates? Steve Jobs?), but no sign on Google of any of the facts claimed. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by article creator IPWrestling (talk · contribs), who also blanked the talk page. Calton | Talk 13:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's funny. Oh sorry, I mean delete.Darkcraft 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NN and unsourced. --Evb-wiki 15:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As obvious hoax. Also hopelessly self-contradictory: if it was founded in September 2007, how come there have been three titles won, two of them in 2006? Thomjakobsen 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this absolutely does not seem true or factual. The claims and roster just do not seem plausible and so must be some kind of prank article or something. And if as strong of an inclusionist as I think something is bs, well... --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatantly hoax article. Rdfox 76 23:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You've got Bill Gates to back you and you can't afford a website? I guess "insane" isn't just a clever name. Mandsford 13:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per everyone else. Nikki311 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatant hoax. --Naha|^(talk) 18:57, 9 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 as CSD G12. Xoloz 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western australia wildflowers[edit]

This article advertises Pemberton Discovery Tours and says very little about wildflowers. Additionally the Flora of Australia article is the best place for information on flowers. Article should be deleted, has no verified information to be added to any other article. Suicidalhamster 13:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not very competent spam (the author didn't even include a link to the PDT Web site), but spam nonetheless. Lacks encyclopedic information, as the nom pointed out. I doubt that Wikitravel would want it. Deor 15:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flora of Australia. Concur with the foregoing comments. If there is any salvagable info, I would merged it. --Evb-wiki 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flora of Australia. It might be worthwhile to create a redirect for Western Australia wildflowers as well. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Capital. Twenty Years 05:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - an apparent advertising attempt but the title is something people might search for. Flora of Australia about covers it. Euryalus 07:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% advertising(WP:CSD#G11 even) wouldnt redirect, title is nonsense wouldnt be a normal searched for item, Western Australian Wildflowers or Wildflowers of Western Australia are more likely to be searched for. Gnan garra 12:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, however, it should be mentioned that Wildflowers of Western Australia would be a very valid and notable subject, due to the sheer diversity of the flora in this state and the increasing numbers of tourism (particularly from overseas) for wildflower season[5], so would be great to see an article on that subject in future. --Russavia 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I couldn't find a link, if that isn't a copy and paste from a website or brochure, I would be incredibly surprised. There is absolutely nothing salvageable (no source is provided) so deletion is the only realistic option. Agree with Gnangarra about redirection and likely search terms. This vote is without prejudice to re-creation as the topic is eminently suitable for an article should anyone be willing to write a well sourced, NPOV one. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete CSD G12 Blatant copyright violation from here. (I knew if I kept looking I would find the source :-)) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. --Evb-wiki 13:40, 10 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. Sandstein 07:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MultiMan Music Group[edit]

NN label that fails to establish notability. Fails WP:CORP. Lugnuts 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Keb25 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:21, 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 13:15, 11 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 most per Moonriddengirl (18:11, 9 September 2007) below, and no consensus to delete the others. Whether or not these should be merged as well is an editorial issue. Sandstein 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits[edit]

A large group of articles for individual Beanie Babies lacking notability per WP:N. Should be either moved into a list or deleted entirely.--PCPP 06:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. --Gavin Collins 08:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or~~ Merge. Definitely not appropriate for individual little articles like this, but considering that Beanie Babies is quite short, I wouldn't object to merging much of this info there. ~~(Count this as a "delete if not merged by the time this closes" vote)~~. AndyJones 12:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Merge (per Moonriddengirl). May I ask if anyone here is volunteering to perform the merge if this closes, now? AndyJones 16:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All Not notable enough for individual articles.DCEdwards1966 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all The beanie babies article would be much more interesting with a "Lawsuits" section, into which verifiable information from all these articles could be merged. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POKEMON. Bravedog 17:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least most I have written most of these articles, and I proposed a WikiProject on Beanie Babies. I did not write an article on every single beanie baby, only a select few that I felt had notability. Mostly, these included those that made news or otherwise heavily impacted society somehow. I have also been unable to complete these articles myself or provide photos - I was hoping someone else would come along and do so.

What I felt would make good individual articles are beanies that were among the most sought during the fad. Also, certain events and concepts pertaining to beanies, such as Retirement (Beanie Babies), would make good articles. Xyz7890 18:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your best approach, then, would be to merge all of this material into Beanie Babies: making it a far better and fuller article. Then, if that article gets too big, individual aspects could be split out into separate articles. See Wikipedia:Summary style. I think little diddy-articles like these will always be attacked, with some justification, for a lack of individual notability; whereas I don't think anyone here doubts that Beanie Babies are sufficiently notable for an article. AndyJones 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but merge some. Some of these articles may do well on their own. In particular, I think the Teenie Beanies and Retirement articles are great. It would be best if some more time, say a month or so, be given before taking any action. Perhaps this debate will help spark more interest. Any articles that cannot be expanded beyond what they are today should then be merged into the Beanie Babies article or into one another. For example, instead of having articles on Peanut or Quackers, there can be an article simply on the beanies of high value. Tatterfly 12:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into fewer articles. The original article on Maple was made into "Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies." The same can be done with others OGLY 16:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but especially the lawsuit one, as that is NN as a set of lawsuits and listcruft to boot. Bearian 01:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with merging: From the scope of this discussion, it has become clear to me that the majority want these articles merged. I am planning to start out by creating a new article titled Rare Beanie Babies that will be a merger of several other articles here in question. Xyz7890 13:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just started it. I just created the article. So far, it contains sections about Peanut and Quackers. I am trying to see what else may belong in that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyz7890 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 4 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, Maxim_(talk) 13:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is complicated. :) I think primarily merge into fewer articles, as OGLY says. There's one for deletion, one for keeping, and one for renaming, in my opinion.

Merge The Original Nine Beanie Buddies into Beanie Buddy--neither page is long enough to merit separation

Merge Teddy (Beanie Baby) into Beanie Babies (but, note, as written it contradicts The Original Nine Beanie Babies). Also merge into Beanie Babies: Counterfeit Beanie Babies and Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits. These topics may merit inclusion in the parent page. Division is not necessary.

Merge Peanut (Beanie Baby), Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Quackers (Beanie Baby) and Clubby into the new page Rare Beanie Babies.

~~Delete~~ Redirect The Original Nine Beanie Babies--I've incorporated that information into Beanie Babies and as it is only a list it should not violate copyright.

Keep Teenie Beanies, though the article needs improvement.

Rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) into Retired (Beanie Babies) and Merge Princess (Beanie Baby) into that.

Primarily I think this is a matter of organization. But note that in most instances, references need improvement. I see primarily references to an unofficial website. --Moonriddengirl 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is the second time these have been put up for deletion. I don't like the use of multiple deletion in this circumstance. I say Keep them all until the person who nominated makes a case for deletion of each one. SolidPlaid 01:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AndyJones asks above if anybody will merge as proposed. Sure, I will. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Incidentally, having merged The Original Nine Beanie Babies to Beanie Babies, I think it's better to redirect it there, rather than deleting as you proposed. AndyJones 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (reset indent)Okay. I have not created redirects because I do not want to complicate the AfD process if others want to see the articles as are. However, I have merged the following--

Into Beanie Babies--The Original Nine Beanie Babies (no copyright issue; information already there); Counterfeit Beanie Babies, Beanie Babies involved in lawsuits, Teddy (Beanie Baby)

Into Beanie Buddies--The Original Nine Beanie Buddies

Into Rare Beanie Babies--Canadian Exclusive Beanie Babies, Clubby

Into Retirement (Beanie Babies)--Princess (Beanie Baby)

Already merged--Quackers (Beanie Baby), Peanut (Beanie Baby)

If Teenie Beanies and Retirement (Beanie Babies) are to be allowed to survive, I think that's the lot of them. If the AfD is closed without objection, I will place redirects on the ones that I've merged. And I will rename Retirement (Beanie Babies) to Retired Beanie Babies. I will also add references to these subpages to the original Beanie Baby article. --Moonriddengirl 18:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. AndyJones 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close now? Looks like we have a consensus. AndyJones 07:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems like consensus. --Moonriddengirl 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve All: Though I originally created these articles about Beanie Babies, I never intended for the project to be a one-person operation. I was hoping from day one that others would get involved, provide more info and references from their expertise, and best of all, photos of these beanies, which unfortunately, I cannot provide myself. I would like to see several more people join the Beanie Babies Wikiproject I proposed and to improve all these articles. Xyz7890 15:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all are we an encyclopaedia or a joke? NBeale 23:03, 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. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson vs. Buckle[edit]

Procedural nomination. This page was recently blanked by an anon on grounds of alleged libel, which I've reverted for the moment. It appears to me to be more than adequately sourced, but I don't know enough (i.e. anything) about the case to judge whether it's a) a BLP violation that should be speedied, b) a valid article but about a subject not notable enough to warrant keeping, that should be deleted via AfD, or c) a valid article which should remain (possibly under another title). So, sending it over here for someone to form an opinion. This is a procedural nom, so I abstain — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While there is precedence for having articles about lawsuits, (Roe v. Wade), at first glance, this article has some problems. First, and most evident, the article seems to be more about the event that led to the lawsuit, rather than the lawsuit itself. While valid sources are listed, with references from the NY Post, MSNBC, WCBStv, etc., it does seem that at least some of the references may be questionable in regards to WP:RS, as they appear to be blogs of some kind (The Gawker, fiercenyc.org). There seems to be significant news coverage of the event that led up to the lawsuit, [6] but it seems that many of the references in the article are relating to the event, rather than to the lawsuit itself. I would think that if care was taken to keep the article's focus on the lawsuit, and not have it shift to a non-neutral slant of the event itself that led to the lawsuit, then the article could remain. All that being said, my initial search didn't find any sources talking about the lawsuit itself (that are not already included in the article), except mentions on blogs, etc., that again mainly covered the event, not the suit. Also, I'd suggest the references be properly cited to add the title, etc, to help with readability and reference. ^Ariel♥Gold 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the stricter enforcement under the WP:BLP1E rule and WP:COATRACK, some at AFD/DRV have advocated legal case names as WP:V-compliant names for articles that should not be biographies. If people have a problem with recounting the "causation" of the lawsuit in such articles, then my argument that these are not optimal names has some merit. I think that "Dwayne Buckle assault case" or some such name might be more appropriate, because it would encompass what people actually want to write an article about as well as what the sources for that article focus on. We can decide a name here or let the editors come up with one. Either that or we just go back to covering these within biographies, but I don't think that would go without controversy. --Dhartung | Talk 20:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dhartung about naming--we might as well use a more direct name. Normally it would be better not to have an (apparent) victim as the primary name, but when there are a group of alleged attackers, its the only practical way. There are sufficient sources for an article. That said, this is an extremely poor article, with selective sourcing and POV. The rewriting should be done with care for BLP with respect to everyone concerned. DGG (talk) 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I rewrote part of the Dwayne Buckle page, which at that time was essentially an attack page attacking the new jersey seven. Arguments ensued, and thus the discussion was spun off to form this page. I will admit to a personal POV, however if someone wishes to produce a better article outlining neutrally all of the claims, counter claims, and media portrayals reasonably then I can tell you they are in for a rough ride, it is neigh impossible to obtain any "official" statements on anything (I tried to obtain a court transcript, for example), and there are barely any facts agreed upon by any of the articles published. I don't know how similar cases are to be handled, so at this point I just have to deliver some article, however "poor" it may be, which referenced everything I could find. Until investigating this case I was blissfully ignorant of the extent of media bias, but seeing so much disagreement in a highly publicized case has enlightened me. I think the article should be kept, and if someone can present the available information without selectively dismissing one article for another they are more than welcome. Danielfong 08:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I wrote the Dwayne Buckle article and it was not an attack on the New Jersey seven. The article was very straight forward and presented the facts as agreed upon by the courts. In fact the information about the attack was intentionally kept to a minimum and did mention Buckles verbal assault of the women before the fight ensued. The fact is your problem and the problem with this article is that you view neutrality as an attack on the New Jersey seven. Now that being said I think this article is worth fixing to a NPOV so I will vote Keep --The Emperor of Wikipedia 05:05, 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, Maxim_(talk) 13:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has a dozen sources from multiple accounts: it surely fulfills notability. This page needs to be cleaned up significantly, but it definitely does not deserve to be deleted. Nyttend 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment To The Emperor of Wikipedia: This shouldn't largely effect policy decision, but, are you aware that (a) courts have been known to make erroneous judgments, (b) media sources such as the New York Post and the Gawker are frequently biased or incorrect, and even newspapers of record, such as the New York Times, are known to be biased and self-censoring (see for example, footage captured in Chomsky's movie, Manufacturing Consent) (c) selectively ignoring reports or discrepancies in the media (such as for example the physical violence that Buckle was reported to have engaged in), and to report conviction of offense as fact (further, for a case set to be appealed), does not seem to fit the sensible definition of neutral? That to deny even the existence of alternative claims of the case in question it fails to provide a meaningful perspective on the issue? I don't have the energy to argue endlessly about this, but I want to make my point clear, again, that I do not believe that that article as it stood was NPOV, that I have reasons for believing this, and that I think many sane people and editors would agree with me. Danielfong 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While, as I said in the nom, I know nothing about the case and am not in a position to judge who's right & wrong, regardless of the justice of the courts decision, the fact of what the decision is a verifiable fact that should be stated in the article should the article be kept (as can, if necessary, discussion of people who believe it's a miscarriage of justice, providing they can be reliably sourced) — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not keep or delete. Cases need notability but no point in law is clarified by this case, unlike Supreme Court cases. If the article is rewritten and retitled about the attack and not -- v. -- then maybe it's a keep. UTAFA 21:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have no reason at all to write an article attacking these women. I wrote the Buckle article because of an E-mail I received about the case from a friend who believed it was a miscarriage of justice. I simply wrote an article with the facts available. Anyhow none of that is important I just don't much care for being accused of authoring an attack site. I think this article ought to be renamed the New Jersey Seven and redirect be established for the name each of the seven defendants. I also feel a template similar to the one for the west memphis three ought to be used. --The Emperor of Wikipedia 21:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's an article about the lawsuit, then I agree with UTAFA; I see no notability there (maybe there's a joke to be made involving a Johnson against a buckle?) The title of one of the sources.."Saying 'hi' lands man in the hospital" says it all (or "Man attacked by seven lesbians" might say it better). Notable because it's a straight guy being attacked by homosexuals, instead of a gay guy being abused by homophobes? Different, yes; notable, I'm not sure. Mandsford 14:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as it's sourced, but needs cleanup. Man bites dog story means it's news, but notable? Bearian 23:55, 11 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 Notability and RS needed to be address given its been listed for 14+ days at afd something beyond a single news article attributed to LA Times(not dated) should have been forth coming. The nomination of a You tube show for a You tube award doesnt make notability. Gnan garra 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Snowmen hunters[edit]

Non-notable Youtube series. No claims of notability, no reliable sources of notability. Nothing at news.google.com. I gave up looking for reliable sources after the first five pages of Google. Nothing has changed since this was closed as a rather disputable no consensus back in March. First Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snowmen hunters. Corvus cornix 22:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Just a youtube series, fails WP:NOTE. Cheers,Je t Lover 22:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of any notability outside youtube Corpx 00:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Previous discussion was dominated by WP:ILIKEIT votes and several editors who argued extensively that due to their nature, viral videos should be excluded from WP:V and WP:N. That bit of wikilawyering aside, all the same concerns are still there. These videos are on the edge of notability, no reliable sources (and two of the references in the article point to the same trivial mention). Most of my comments in the previous AfD have been taken care of (the article is a damn sight better then it was when the first AfD started), but I still think that 700k all time views is just a blip in the YouTube world, where even the most 100 most popular comedy clips have over 3 million views. I don't have anything against truly notable and widespread viral videos, but Wikipedia just isn't for whatever happens to tickle the fancy of folks trolling the front page of YouTube. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Granted that when I or the other main contributer to the article have updated it in the past few months we somehow missed that the original links were changed by the sources. The links are now fixed and some new content added. Please note that the creators of Snowmen Hunting were invited by the YouTube management to be the only representatives for all the comedians on YouTube to the YouTube Sales and Business Development conference. This in and of itself gives them some notability within the YouTube community.

As to Corvus_cornix's search on Google please note WP:GOOGLEHITS as a guide to why this may not be a reliable way to judge notability.

In answer to CosmicPenquin about the number of views I call your attention to the guideline of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH which points out that there is no arbatrary number that denotes notability. As you stated: "These videos are on the edge of notability". Where exactly is that edge and at what point does one cross over? Many of the top 100 videos that Mr. Penquin mentions are clips of professional comedians. Many of which may have an entry about them in WP. At what point in their carreer did these professionals become notable? I'm reluctent to try and put an exact date or number of people having seen them as a way to designate that they have arrived and are notable. steveoutdoorrec 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion (in much the same way that WP:GOOGLEHITS should not having direct bearing on what goes on here), but I bring it up because both the article and the previous AfD make YouTube popularity the primary reason to keep. This is never about popularity, its about reliable non-trivial references, which presumably those professional comedians have, and if they don't they should be deleted as well. I say that Snowmen Hunters are on the edge of notability, because you seem much better organized then most YouTube citizens and are obviously on your way up, but as it stands today, there is just too little that meets WP:N. These problems are not new - they were brought up before, and as is now, your arguments were not for the merits of the article, but rather the inadequacies of the guidelines. I can appreciate that, but they don't actually get you any closer to keeping this article from being nominated for deletion every other month or so. Believe me, I have tried to find something that adequately convinces me that this article belongs here, but I have come up short. Thats not to say that sources don't exist - its just that I have been unable to find them. Rather then question if the other editors are applying the guidelines fairly, perhaps you can help where Google falls short. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about Google was not about "how many" Google hits there were, but the quality of them. I couldn't find a single one which qualifies under reliable sources. Corvus cornix 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic: believe me I'm not here to pick fights with other editors about applying guidelines. I was just responding to a comment and trying to make sure we were all on the same page. Text is sometimes a poor medium to use in discussions as it's easy to read emotions in where none exist. But, as you just said that you "personally don't believe that YouTube views or subscriptions or reviews should not be determining factors of the discussion," (emphasis mine) it would seem that you are trying to apply a double standard by saying it's ok for you to ignore guidelines that you disagree with, but I should be held fast to those same nebulous guidelines. This series is notable by vertue of the over 2.5 million times the episodes have been viewed across the web (not just on YouTube) and the amount of on-line mentions from various sources. Notability is all about popularity, worthy of notice, and being memorable.

To try and clear up where Snowmen Hunters are talked about in print and on videos I've added a few more links in the article to mentions of the series on Digg.com and from the LA Times. I could have added more from the well known bloggers but didn't want to clutter the article with too many of the same type of mention. The show has been featured on CMT's Country Fried Videos and will be available via Comcast's Video On Demand service in the near future. I haven't added links to these as this information is about how, due to the popularity of the series, it is getting picked up by other media outlets. As more data comes in about how many times it is demanded by Comcast subscribers that information will be added to the article.

Corvus: I understand when you say you can't find a "reliable source" on Google because what you consider reliable for WP is not a criteria that Google uses. They rank pages by how many other websites link to a particular webpage. See: How does Google find and add sites to its index? My quick Google search yielded over 1.7 million hits. I had to go past the first 300 just to get beyond the many bloggers that have written about the series. In this age of the blog-o-sphere many notible web-based events and entertainment are not written about in the dying paper-based press that is rooted in the the 18th century. If you don't believe the print press is dying, just ask yourself why they are all going with digital editions? All of which I stated six months ago when the article was first put up for deletion. steveoutdoorrec 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you debate the guidelines, rather then the content of the article. I admit, its an effective strategy, since there are only so many times we can say, read WP:N and WP:RS without it getting tiresome. I guess you care more then I do, but only enough to get the article kept, but not enough to improve it until the next AfD comes along. My last word on the matter is that I suppose that the LA Times article is probably enough to convince the closing admin to keep, but I'm going to stick with a Weak Delete, because I just don't think this hits WP:N. I do want to point out that the same source is linked three different times under News Articles, and one other time as a reference in the article, and the LA Times article is linked twice, so if this is kept, the article should be tided up. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tided up. It's not that I don't care enough to only improve it when challenged as you will notice that the article is continually updated as new episodes are added. I'd say it was that I have a very busy late spring and summer managing a wilderness park and don't get on-line as much as I do in the off season, so when I'm on I don't have time to go back and check for broken links on every site I have a hand in. Checking here and the two websites for snowshoe racing that I run for just this kind of thing is a priority in the fall. Thank you for helping improve the article. Going back to the original AfD, one of the reasons given was that noone could find mention of the creators or the series in IMDB. There is a new website for user-generated content at UGCDB steveoutdoorrec 10:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGCDB does not appear to be a WP:RS because its primary method of listing is people adding themselves in [7]. Leuko 15:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Leuko: As stated on the UGCDB homepage "The information comes in part from the ugcDb community contributions as well as dedicated editors." This should sound familiar as "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." Anyone can add content to either, not just a person "adding themselves." I'm happy to report that the creators of Snowmen Hunters didn't add themselves to the database. The entry was made by the site editor after he did an interview with the creators of Snowmen Hunters steveoutdoorrec 00:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is reference to the LA Times. Not to mention EVERY other person nominated in the Best Series category for the 2006 YouTube awards has an entry in Wikipedia. The removal is without merit. No need to single out these guys. ScottS —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottS (talk • contribs) 16:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that that LA Times article is not hosted on the LA Times website, but on a different website altogether? Corvus cornix 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the article expired. It's not uncommon. It was linked here on Wikipedia through the LA Times for a while. ScottS

I repeat - I went to news.google.com to look for "Snowmen hunters", and came up with nothing. Nobody in the mass media appears to be interested in these guys. Corvus cornix 17:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody that is except the LA Times and the Chico News and Review. These publications have documented articles on the subject (see links in article), yet they do not come up on a Google search. Is it possible that Google has a way of ranking items found from a search that precludes some subjects from being listed? On the Google.News' FAQ page for How do you decide which stories appear on the Google News homepage?they state, "Our headlines are selected entirely by computer algorithms, based on factors like how often and where a story appears online. Google News has no human editors selecting stories or deciding which ones deserve top placement." I don't know about you but I don't find that machines know what news items I want to read. Google is not a credible source, in my opinion, to base decisions on what constitues news. As I've stated above, and in the original discussion, that in this day and age we have to take into account alternative sources for articles written on many subjects. Especially for web based entertainment. The print media is dying and with most of them being owned by the same people that control traditional media (TV and radio) there will be a dreath of stories about the new competition. The reporters and editor know who signs their paychecks. steveoutdoorrec 00:11, 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, Maxim_(talk) 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One LA Times column doesn't impress me - notability means more than that. And Wikipedia doesn't change its rules for web based content. If the only coverage comes from some guy's blog, then it isn't notable. MarkBul 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you noticed that no blogs are or ever were listed as links for the article. So your point is moot. They are honored by YouTube by being asked to represent the comedians on the site. The show is picked by YouTube to be one of the top ten comedies in a contest in which they placed 8th. The show has at least two other YouTubers doing paradies. The Snowmen Liberation Front and the Snowmen Hunter- English Version. Some would say that all of these as well as the other links in the article point to some notarity steveoutdoorrec 02:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what's wrong with sources like this one, among several others. Substantial coverage from reliable sources >> notability. 10:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by XDanielx (talk • contribs)
- The New America Foundation has an agenda, I'm not sure anything on their site is particularly neutral. Corvus cornix 16:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably right, but I don't think the New America Foundation has any outstanding biases that would prevent the group from qualifying as reliable. And it was published by the Los Angeles Times. Seems fair enough - probably not exactly neutral, but I don't think there's anything remarkable here compared to other sources that are considered reliable. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think there's a mass media outlet that doesn't have an agenda. Whether you agree with it or not depends on your personal outlook and which side of the aisle you lean toward. This does not preclude them from being a credible source for items that are non-political in nature such as the entry under discussion. steveoutdoorrec 10:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The New America Foundation is not a "mass media outlet". Corvus cornix 15:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was refering to XDanielx and the way his wording implied that the LA Times was not exactly neutral. In my opinin no media outlet is, main stream or otherwise. But that's for another discussion on some other forum. steveoutdoorrec 22:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just a highly successful, press-garnering YouTube series. Chubbles 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Ridiculous, no refs, non-notable. If we had articles on every you-tube that got a passing mention in a newspaper.... NBeale 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article? It certainly includes many assertions of notability beyond "a passing mention in a newspaper." — xDanielx ^T/_C 09:10, 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 Gnan garra 01:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chitauri[edit]

There is nothing here or in the first few pages of Google indicating that, except for a few of the followers of David Icke, the 'Chitauri' are anything other than a part of the Marvel universe, where they appear to be synonymous with Skrull topynate 22:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per norm, Google isn't considered to be a universally reliable indicator, particularly when are searching for a foreign term from a region that has only a marginal history of web publishing. If you used an Arabic language search engine to search for details of an 8 track cassette, you might might not be able to find evidence of its notability even if it went to number 1 in the US.- perfectblue 17:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of real world sources giving significant coverage to this term Corpx 00:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and cleanup: David Icke and his brand of reptio related conspiracy are notable and verifiable, despite being unscientific, therefore this page should be merged with either Icke's page or one of the pages regarding reptiods and alien conspiracies. They are the father page this is a child page. It might not be notable enough on it's own but the history and usage of the term still have a place on Wikipedia. If this page is deleted, please post a copy to my user page so that I may kull it for information relation to the term in popular culture/modern conspiracy myth. - perfectblue 07:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable term, and possibly made up. Article seems to be original research. --Gavin Collins 12:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a citation, so not all of it is WP:OR, as for being made up? So what? somebody made up the story of The Hook, too. Being fiction isn't a good reason for deletion. - perfectblue 17:52, 6 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, Maxim_(talk) 13:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaaaaaay, It's probably a good time for me to mention that this is a foreign language term in a foreign language context and that google therefore probably isn't a good source of information (Google is only really any good at topics being covered in places on the up side of the digital divide). It's also probably a good time to mention that this is a cousin of a much more western and much more notable modern conspiracy/myth promoted by a man named David Icke who believes that giant lizards secretly rule the world. It's nuts, but its true (that he believes this, and that his ramblings are notable). Therefor at the very least this page should be clipped and merged with Icke's lizards. As it is, there is enough here for a stub entry. - perfectblue 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"except for a few of the followers of David Icke" - David Icke is notable as a loon, and so followers of his work. What you're saying is akin to "Babe Ruth is only relevant to baseball fans" - perfectblue 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant just what I said - even amongst Ickeites, it's hardly a well known term. We're talking Goldie Holt, not Babe Ruth. I favour a redirect to Skrull, as insofar as the word Chitauri is notable at all, it is in this context. I have seen statements that David Icke inadvertently gave the Skrull their original name, which cannot be strictly true, as they first appear in the 60s; he may have given rise to use of the word Chitauri in a modern series set in a parallel universe.

There is in any case no information that does not better belong either in another Icke article or in Skrull. topynate 18:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that that we should keep the skrull out of this debate; at most they are a distraction, and Proposing that a page be deleted simply because the term is more notablely used elsewhere simply isn't in line with current wiki policy. At most the Skrull issue should be dealt with through a disambiguation link. Chitauri (Comic book) would be my favored solution.

However, I still hold that Chitauri (as lizards) are a record worthy subsection of the wider conspiracy/modern myth about reptilian humanoids. While the term might not be as well known as Icke's other mutterings, and might have become deprecated, it forms part of the topics history and thus needs to be recored. If not here, then at Icke's page of one of the pages about Icke's books/beliefs. Keep as a stub or merge, but there are no real grounds for deletion. - perfectblue 08:20, 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. — TKD::Talk 07:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Barge[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. One independent source is given (#2), but this one does not contain in-depth coverage of the subject. PROD was contested with request to list the article on AfD. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She was involved in a once-newsworthy event, but there are insufficient reliable sources to say much about her beyond that. The event itself doesn't seem particularly noteworthy in retrospect, although I can understand why this might have been created at the time. Thomjakobsen 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable beyond the single crime. --DHeyward 14:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to violate WP:BLP1E. - Crockspot 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has some notability beyond the crime. THat's why she has an article and the person who actually committed the fraud doesn't. She's not notable enough for an article though. --DHeyward —Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs) 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. --Tom 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability aside from this minor incident is presented. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 05:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even with the crime reference, the notability argument seems a bit thin. As it stands however, the reference to the crime has been removed from the article as the Washington Post source did not support the statement regarding this person's involvement. Various blogs make the link but I couldn't find an alternative mainstream source to replace the deleted one. In the absence of the crime reference the Katie Barge article is just about a communications director at a non-profit who used to work for John Edwards. This certainly lacks notability. Euryalus 06:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the crime reference. It's in the plea agreement for Weiner. Barge wasn't charged but was involved per the agreement. She's wroked for DSCC, John Edwards, Media Matters and now Faith in Public Life. Get's a ton of google hits--DHeyward 07:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable for one news event, not enough pubiished material to support a biography Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:26, 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 no consensus, default to keep. Neil ム 11:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank B. Dehn & Co.[edit]

Non-notable specialized law firm. It has not been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. "Ranked in the top tier of the annual Legal 500 list of UK patent and trade mark firms" does not make a specialized law firm notable. Edcolins 12:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the non-notability simply due to the unverified citation? Or does being "specialized" somehow disqualify it? In the former case, the link did not work due to the need for a session cookie when accessing the Legal 500 website; the citation has now been amended accordingly. A further point of note is the firm's being the second-largest patent firm in the UK. This fact is now included and referenced in the article. Orie0505 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for your message. I maintain my opinion that the topic of the article does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations and companies. "A company (...) is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Being listed on a publication of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) or on Legal 500 does not establish notability. Legal 500 is basically a business directory while CIPA is the professional organization of UK patent attorneys (which registers all UK patent attorney firms I suppose). Also, the number of attorneys is not a sufficient criterion to establish notability. A reliable, independent source offering a substantial depth of (independent) coverage would be necessary to establish notability. --Edcolins 19:30, 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (changed opinion; see below) per Edcolins without prejudice. It certainly is well-publicized, with 34,000+ google hits. But fame is distinct from notability, and after browsing for some time I've failed to find anything to substantiate notability. The page as it is does not in my opinion pass muster. I'm assuming there must be something; the company was founded in 1920 and claims to have represented Apple. One would presume it would generate some press coverage. I wish I could find it. But I can't, and verifiability states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." I hope I have the opportunity to change my opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to Edcolins and Moonriddengirl for your responses. The firm has, of course, since 1920 represented many notable clients in many notable patent and trade mark applications and appeals. It is, however, in the nature of the industry that firms of attorneys and their clients often desire (and achieve) very little press attention. If one has access to patent and trade mark databases, published law reports, etc. there are many mentions of the firm and its attorneys. But you are right that there seems to be very little in the popular press. I have added details one one very notable client in the field of software patents (see the articles on the High Court judgement). Orie0505 17:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The additions to the page since its nomination, and especially today (its part in a precedent setting court case and its breaking ground in Germany), seem to me to satisfy notability. Note that I don't think this is indisputable, which is why my support of keeping the article is not strong. It would be nice to see more secondary sources; the court case is supported by a primary source, which is not sufficient as consideration for notability. However, I think there's enough for the article to survive, and I hope that further secondary sources may be forthcoming. --Moonriddengirl 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, Moonriddengirl, I don't quite follow your new opinion (and you don't seem to be completely convinced yourself..). The question is not whether the legal case is notable, the question is whether the law firm is notable per se (the client "Neal Macrossan" does not seem notable to me by the way - and certainly not "very notable"). A notable case does not necessarily make the lawyer who handled the case notable, unless the lawyer's contribution to the case is acknowledged by reliable, secondary sources as being decisive to the case's notability. Similarly if the client had been notable, this would not even necessarily mean that the lawyer is also notable. Regarding the alleged "breaking ground in Germany", is there any other source mentioning this "first" as a notable achievement? A single secondary source does not seem enough to me, and I doubt this is actually an outstanding achievement (this is nice for clients sure, but it seems to me the "breaking ground" is more of an advertisement-like statement - it is not even clear who is the author of this article on www.managingip.com). The European Union has rules to allow lawyers to work in other countries if admitted to plead in one EU member state. Sorry I still think the article does not satisfy the notability guidelines and should be deleted. --Edcolins 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. True, but I wasn't all that strongly convinced it was non-notable, either. That's what that "weak" business is all about. :) I wouldn't argue its notability to my grave--that's why I noted that its not indisputable...and also that additional secondary sources are necessary. However,I believe that a law firm becomes notable through its representation of clients (notability acquired per working on notable cases) and that any company that is the first to be permitted full privileges to operate in another nation seems to have a fair bid for notability. Managing Intellectual Property seems to be an industry publication and gives every indication of satisfying requirements as a reliable secondary source. However, it isn't at all a broad representation, hence my lukewarm support. I have added another secondary source, but it's also from MIL, and I still think the article needs more. Hopefully some other editors will weigh in. This one doesn't seem to be attracting too much attention, though it's nice to see it being discussed rather than simply !=voted on. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I am still not convinced. Let's wait for other users to comment on this... --Edcolins 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Orie0505, if you work at Frank B. Dehn & Co., please carefully read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may also consider declaring an interest, although this is not mandatory. Thanks. --Edcolins 21:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability requirements of WP:CORP: this legal firm has had no evidience of having demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Reliable secondary sources are not cited in the article, and they certainly have given any context by quantifying these effects. --Gavin Collins 15:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References cited not enough to meet WP:CORP. --Randomshoes 13:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The actual top tier in the Legal 500 is a group of only 7 firms--one of the top 7 UK firms in the field is in my opinion notable. The article there states "Kerry Tomlinson heads 'world-class' Frank B. Dehn & Co., 'who are right at the top of their game.' In 2005 the team, which includes Robert Jackson and Rebecca Gardner, continued to expand its presence in the Norwegian hi-tech patents sector, and won NTNU and Biotec Pharmacon ASA as new clients. Christopher Davies secured a major EPO opposition win in the Medtronic Inc case, while Philip Jeffrey advises Matsushita on DVD technology. The firm also advised eBay on its $2.6bn acquisition of Skype. Matthew Dixon left the firm to head up ip21 Limited's London office." DGG (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidenc of notability. the Legal 500 links doesn't seem to work and I v much doubt if it is the top teir. Certainly not established by the article. NBeale 23:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crucially, the firm has no commentary in the Legal 500 overview (here) which would indicate some notability. None of the references are of the substantial commentaries needed. TerriersFan 02:12, 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. Sandstein 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zooppa[edit]

Non-notable in May 2007, still not notable. Aleph-4 17:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Alexa rank 180,000 [8] which is not that notable; contribution histories of the main two article editors suggest WP:COI. The references for notability look pretty much like press releases and "brief summary of the nature of the content", which are not acceptable by WP:WEB. Han-Kwang (t) 21:58, 2 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have generated reliable third-party coverage, assuming not notable. The links given at the page look like the usual insubstantial PR releases. As the article states, they're not particularly unique either, with numerous similar competitors, so they don't inherit notability from the fact they're offering a new sort of product. Thomjakobsen 13:48, 8 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.

Meat For A Dark Day[edit]

Non-notable band. Speedy denied on the grounds that notability was asserted. Notability assertion seems to depend on a bit of a walled garden. 1 released single which doesn't appear to have charted. No albums. Doesn't meet WP:BAND WebHamster 12:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is a classic non-notable band page--the usual collection of MySpace and promotional links. Blueboy 96 18:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as notability isn't inherited from the supposedly more notable former group of the band member(s). --Agamemnon2 11:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Author[edit]

Notability was asserted due to the link to the Fat Truckers a group linked closely to British group Pulp (band) ie. they toured with Pulp on the last extensive Pulp tour, member Ross Orton played percussion with Pulp live and the band remixed several Pulp tracks. Pulp lead singer Jarvis Cocker repeatedely mentioned the band in interviews in Pulp's last years.

Fat Truckers: The Fat Truckers were one of the originators of the music genre Electroclash, which combined Electronica/Electronic dance music with Punk Rock, after much touring and independantly released singles they were signed to DJ Hell's International DJ Gigolo record label. Their tracks were more widely know in clubs and they featured on countless compilation albums alongside more well know artists. Jason Buckle from Fat Truckers also formed part of Jarvis Cocker's post Pulp band Relaxed Muscle. Ex-Fat Trucker Ross Orton is also Meat for a Dark Day's producer, he is also know for producing M.I.A and working with Steve Mackey from Pulp.

Therefore I believe their close links, and descendance from, the band Fat Truckers qualifies this entry to be valid.

Meat For A Dark Day: Other than their close link to influential, cult act the Fat Truckers. Meat for a Dark Day are notable for their high profile support slots to major British and US bands (e.g. Low (band), The Earlies, Josh T Pearson etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark a (talk • contribs) 10:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC) 81.152.14.169 23:29, 9 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. CitiCat^♫ 01:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Truckers[edit]

A band that barely scrapes in to WP:BAND on a vague technicality (a part-time member of the band was in another notable band). Only 1 album release that doesn't appear to have charted. Nomination: Non-notable WebHamster 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:NN and provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 12:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this band has reliable sources and passes the G-test in my eyes [9]. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Both links go to pages that refer to the band as parts of larger articles, the first one only gets 1.5 paragraphs, the second one gets a 1 line mention that is shared with another band. Hardly substantial. As for your G test, add -blog and -mp3 to the search string and you're down to 756 hits many of which are referrals to pages that are actually selling the CD e.g. Amazon and CDUniverse or playing their material on internet radio. Not what I'd call substantial coverage. YMMV --WebHamster 14:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found the article interesting and informative. I did, however, label it as a stub-- it needs a lot of expansion. Voyager640 17:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're right, it just barely meets WP:BAND. But it does meet it. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 18:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep barely = yes spazure (contribs) (review) 09:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From WP:BAND "Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.". This last half of the sentence was partly the reason I nominated the article, and as in the nomination, they just barely scraped into meeting WP:BAND. This I believe does not make it a slam dunk.--WebHamster 11:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BAND; notable enough. Album was also released in the US on International DeeJay Gigolo Records—well above the local band level. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Precious Roy (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beta (news agency)[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:CORP (contested prod).

Maxim_(talk) 12:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE. I have tagged it for speedy delete because it is nothing but a copyvio cut and pasted from the subject's website. OfficeGirl 13:49, 8 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. sloppy debate, concensus for deleting, WP:GOOGLEHITS isn't a reason for keeping, references are poor, and also no indication was given on why this resterant is important to an area that isn't local Jaranda ^{wat's sup} ^Sports! 01:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate's Dinner Adventure[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is the 4th nomination for deletion. CSD was refused on the grounds that notability is asserted (not sure how though). Non-notability per WP:CORP WebHamster 12:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for newcomers to this discussion: This article has been flushed out with many sources added since the initial beginning of this debate. Please take the time to look at the article as it exists now. Thanks. Nesnad 17:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webhamster, as your profile states, you like to delete things. This establishment has to be kind of notable because I found links to it and wanted to get details from Wikipedia and couldn't because there was no page. This isn't an advertisement. Look at the link provided for a review of the place, mostly negative people complaining about bad food. Bad food doesn't mean a place isn't notable. This is surly big enough to have a Wikipedia page. Don't go delete crazy. Thanks. Nesnad 12:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't really try to explain why it's notable, other than comparing its business model to two other chains which have widespread recognition. Link in article is to a brief entry in a "city guide", which presumably covers most if not all of the restaurants in a given area. Thomjakobsen 14:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE Should be speedied under CSD G4. There is nothing here that wasn't discussed in the previous AfD's. it has just been recreated against policy. The only reference given is to a listing on a local restaurant guide which appears to have been prepared by the restaurant's own publicist. In the comments section postings from former patrons of the restaurant encourage us not to believe the hype. Contrary to Nesnad's assertion the external link source is not a restaurant review by an independent critic -- not a reliable source. OfficeGirl 14:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DID YOU EVEN READ THE LINK?? How could it be prepared by the publicist?? The user reviews are horrible. They all gave less than three stars. I think the link wasn't really read carefully. And regarding other comments, the article is a baby thats why it doesn't go into too many details yet. Do a google search, there is a lot of info out there. I just don't have time yet to pull it all together yet. I have no connection to this place, never even been there, but see no reason why it cant be here. Information is useful and if a similar company (in the same area) Medieval Times has a huge wikipedia page why cant this one? That's like saying McDonalds can have a page but Burger King can not. Nesnad 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES, I read the webpage that was linked to from the article, and the two other links that have been added since. They are all listings on local restaurant guides. The initial listing is something that would be placed at the request of the restaurant. The responses to the listing are nothing different than posts on any internet forum, and we don't generally regard forum posts as reliable sources, no matter what the post says. Medieval Times has established its notability and has been the subject of media coverage and numerous major cultural references. Very few people have heard of these two "Pirate's Dinner Adventure" restaurants, and those who have are telling us not to believe the hype and not to waste our time on them. They are non-notable, crappy restaurants and this article is nothing but an advertisement which has been deleted twice from Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 16:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay NPOV. Crappy place to eat does not equal shouldn't make an article. I agree these places like like tourists traps, disagree that there shouldn't be an article. Nesnad 18:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crappy place to eat does not equal shouldn't make an article. - Given that this doesn't form any part of her argument, this warning seems pointless, as does the misplaced evoking of NPOV: given that this page isn't an article, what does POV/NPOV have to do with anything? --Calton | Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cant see any reason for the article other than advertising. It's just a restaurant. (Or two). And nothing notable about it. Marcus22 15:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to vote. I know Wikipedia culture, now everyone else will jump on the delete with out thinking hard. Please people, I don't get why the rush to delete. Wiki isnt a paper dictionary, we can include a lot more than a paper one. I repeat, in a google exclusive search (with quotes) this has over 20,000 hits. This isn't a minor small shop. This seems to play a part in the local area, it is close to Knot's berry farm, and provides context for that park. I don't get this rush to delete it? Nesnad 16:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what is meant by references. They need to be reliable, independent and substantial reports. Linking to pages where Joe Public leaves reviews or there are just a few lines of promotional puff does not cut it. Also the number of Google links in itself is not an indicator, it's the quality and relevance that counts. Quantity is not a surrogate for quality. Please re-read WP:CORP. You are trying to overturn 3 previous AFD votes, you won't manage that without impeccable citations. --WebHamster 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local restaurant with no real notability outside the local region. Including local businesses like this makes us the yellow pages Corpx 17:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what webhamster said above that "you won't manage that without impeccable citations" ... Isn't this afd vote thing sort of useless if people will decide to delete something because it was deleted before? Are you saying that in order to keep this as "valid" for wikipedia I need a mountain of book references? Thats not going to happen for this and most other eating establishments... but Wikipedia has a category so that must not rule such establishments out just on that factor? (I know this article should be judged on it's own merits, but it does exist in the ecosystem known as Wikipedia afterall.) The more I look into this place, it looks like a crappy place I'd never want to go... but I still think it seems to play a significant enough role that it should be given a chance to be developed into an article. And I suppose I don't have to remind you guys that Wikipedia isn't a democracy. WP:DEMOCRACY Just because I am in the minority doesn't mean you can up and delete this with out a good discussion. I really don't understand this rash "delete everything that isn't super super famous" thing these days. Nesnad 17:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you to the extent that you are saying this AfD is a needless process. Under wikipedia policy this should be speedily deleted, see CSD G4. There really isn't any need for a vote.OfficeGirl 18:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking back over the previous AfD's, I see at least 14 different users have said Delete on this article. Why was it recreated? Nothing seems to have changed in terms of notability. Marcus22 17:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this isnt a CSD G4, I made this article myself, and are you saying no article can ever be made after it has been deleted? Although I'm loosing spirit here. You all are in bloody shark frenzy mode so I guess there is nothing I can do to try to build articles about such American pop culture things on here. This article was made in order to make a red link blue... It's a useless holeinthewall but I'm sure there are enough tourists going in and out of it that it should have information about it on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why you all are so dead set against this? Nesnad 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed that it's not a CSD G4 as that covers exact copies of previously deleted material, and I trust that you've written this from scratch. But if tourist throughput were a measure of notability, we'd have articles on the various toilet blocks at Disneyland. Anyway, it can't be that notable or else it would have been raided by an army of ninjas by now. Thomjakobsen 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article has no sources and seems likely not to acquire sources, rather than because of some pile-on delete. If reliable sources are added to the article, please then keep it. Nihiltres^(t.l) 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: This is a perfect case for the application of WP:SNOW.OfficeGirl 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt WP:SNOW but I concede if people don't start thinking clearly this will begin to seem like an WP:UPHILL battle... Which I don't want. So please... Please think clearly, don't just jump on the delete bandwagon, so to speak. (Please see the newspaper references and what not.) Thanks Nesnad 10:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am agreeing with User:Nihiltres here on what to do with this article. Captain panda 21:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedily as a {{db-repost}}. No sources, barely a suggestion of notability, and the article creator's overreaction isn't helping. --Calton | Talk 03:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. My "overreaction" is simply remembering when we used to be able to try to make an article before it was attacked by a million "rule police". Maybe this article sucks, but there is no time to find out because it is killed before the community gives it a chance to grow. The scream for "more reliable sources" is odd, there are tons out there, it just takes shifting through them. Newspapers are valid aren't they? The Chicago Tribune has record of this place. here I guess I should add it. Those of you attack this place, please explain why not even a newspaper is valid for your attack mode? These days, there are more soldiers than civilians on Wikipedia. Please think clearly. Don't let your hate of a place make you have a POV, please stay NPOV. Nesnad 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT Forgot to mention my second newspaper reference: here Two mentions of this establishment in newspapers, this second one even has a clearly labeled print date. Thus it is even a print reference. Come on people, stop the hate train. Think clearly. Thanks. Nesnad 09:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial references are required. In both those articles, the place is mentioned once amongst a list of other places, and the writers don't seem to have even been there. Find us a review in one of those newspapers and it might be a start. This has got nothing to do with "hating the place" or not "thinking clearly". We just want some proof of notability, same as the people involved the last 3 times it got deleted, and we haven't seen any so far. Thomjakobsen 10:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean about references? I don't live in America, I assume good faith. When the content at the link says it is real, I believe it is. I am not sure what you need beyond the link? I do agree the first link didn't say much more than it's name. Although it is proof that this touristy place is notable enough to even get it's name printed in a newspaper article. References don't have to be positive to make something notable, of course, right? This one by the Union Tribune in San Diego complains about a planned move. It does more than name drop, it talks about the company's plans and what people in the community think. here Nesnad 10:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: Medieval Times has an entire article about it in a major publication, establishing notability beyond a doubt (otherwise, why would such an article be written? no-one would know what he was talking about). Dolly Parton's place appears to have a behind the scenes documentary starring the lady herself, besides being owned by a big star. The bar doesn't have to be this high, reviews in reliable newspapers might be sufficient. The Union Tribune article seems too trivial, it's just reportage of some fuss being caused by the restaurant's owners in San Diego. If a local restaurant was investigated for a food poisoning outbreak, they'd get similar depth of news coverage, but it wouldn't mean they're notable. I'm assuming, if that's the best third-party source we've found so far, that no substantial ones exist. Thomjakobsen 12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, but it does seems a little like you want to shoot down any references I get. Before it was you need one. I get one and you say its not substantial enough because you say it's on the same level as food poising. Although I disagree, I don't see how this makes it not notable. Can you point out where large population local area disputes in a newspaper regarding an establishment does not count for any notability whatsoever? And I am a bit annoyed by the "we've found" comment. That's one of the things annoying me about this, I seem to be the only one working on this. Back in the day people would work together to find notability. I'm busy, I'm doing my best. And I think I found quite a bit. Please quote where the sources (newspaper, blog review, youtube video) are not enough to show this place is not a known establishment. Thanks Nesnad 12:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's said "you need one reference", the issue right from the beginning is that you need substantial, non-trivial coverage by independent, reliable sources. The issue is not whether this place exists (which I'm sure it does), but whether it is noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. The guidelines are at WP:N. I said "we've found" because people obviously have done a search for sources and have found nothing substantial. The fact that you're bringing up sources which others have rejected as not being supportive of notability doesn't mean that you're the only one putting any effort into this. If I'd said "If this is the best you've found", you'd perhaps complain that I was being adversarial. If you can show us some good sources, we can change our opinions on this. But arguing in the absence of such gets us nowhere. Thomjakobsen 13:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nesnad, please stop being so abusive. If the article is worth keeping, prove it. Just calling everyone 'sharks' or 'rule police' or whatever is making no positive difference whatsoever to this debate. Likewise, it is rather annoying to be told, repeatdely, to 'think clearly'. Some of us are quite capable of doing that and, indeed, have done so. Marcus22 10:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Marcus22, I'm just honestly annoyed. It seems like nothing can be built on Wikipedia these days. Wiki is about information, not about a bunch of people hunting to delete things. I agree with their intentions, not their attitudes. I remember back in the day people would try to work together to establish if something was worth keeping instead of this rabid "delete it!!" mentality. Anyway Marcus22, fair feedback. I just don't know how I can get people to take a breath and stop being so hyperactive on the del key. Nesnad 11:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walk the Plank It's survived three nominations so far, but has this article improved at all? It's a theme restaurant that's capitalizing on the current interest in pirates; and it has two locations, one near Knott's Berry Farm, the other near Disney World. It's got a website... but the only publicity cited is a "mention" in a St. Pete newspaper article and two reviews on the web. Keep Nesnad has gone to a lot of effort to improve the article after listening to suggestions, adding sources and doing some rewrite. Dixie Stampede and Medieval Times have only a handful of locations, and, as with Pirates Dinner, they're at high-traffic, expensive locations. The article also indicates that the new chain is working on getting another location. So, I'll change my vote keep and ask everyone else to take into account the improvements. Mandsford 14:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, multiple references, survived three nominations already, interesting, well organized article, nice picture, etc. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't survived any nominations; it's already been deleted three times. The references all fall way short of WP:N. Thomjakobsen 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thomjakobsen! How do the references fall too short? I think this is notable enough for an article, can you please quote directly from the policy how the references fail to meet policy? Thanks for your time. Nesnad 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: To offer my own quote, the top of the WP:N thing states "This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". " Can you explain to me why you still reject this article? It seems like people are telling me this touristy place isn't famous enough. Clear conflict with this policy which states fame isn't part of the concept. Once again, please explain directly how this article (I have worked hard to add more details that have never been in this article before, and will be adding more in the future) fails to meet WP:N? Thanks. Nesnad 16:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines are at WP:N (on the need for significant coverage in reliable sources) and WP:RS (on the nature of reliable sources). Specifically, sources need to back up the information in the article. The UT article, although a reliable publication, doesn't back up the information in the article, with the exception of the one sentence which seems to have been inserted solely to justify using the source. The other sources are a blog (not reliable), a user-generated business directory (not reliable) and a trivial mention in a tourism piece, where it is mentioned once in a list of attractions (not significant, detail is required and it doesn't back up any of the article). Notable subjects will tend to have generated the type of coverage we're talking about, and that coverage would be substantial enough to back up the information in an article, and to establish notability. If in doubt, go look at articles for things which are considered notable, and see what kind of sources are considered suitable. Thomjakobsen 17:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better answer than I could have given. I'm being sincere when I say, "Thanks for your time." Mandsford 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The references which you have sourced do not establish notability. (Being the subject of a very localised planning debate, for example, is not sufficient). So, to try to be helpful, what would make for notability? Well if it had a top chef that might help. It it had been the scene of a famous murder, ditto. If it was owned and run by a famous person and the meeting place of the rich and famous, likewise. (But even then people might disagree that it is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article). Where are the stateswide or even international reviews? Where are the major scandals that link directly to the place? Find us something which makes the place noteworthy and I'm sure many of us will gladly change our vote. Conversely please accept that, without such information, there is no reason for this article to exist. Marcus22 18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really took a lot of time to reply, thanks. However I think you are misunderstanding WP:N? When talking about notability, it states This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". The examples you gave clearly say things like "famous" and what not. This is NOT what notability is according to WP:N. Please have a read of that and take note that I'm not trying to claim this place is internationally famous. Simply, I read on a random blog about this place near Knott's Berry Farm. I went to wikipedia and it wasn't there. I am adding information for any other people that want to know. Notable does not mean famous. It's about weather its important to put in Wikipedia or not. There are many blog references (and blogs are important. Don't try to sell the idea that wikipedia exists in some sort of internet free environment) about this place, and I'm sure someone will want more information. That's what Wikipedia is about, sharing infromation. Thanks. Nesnad 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there are references provided none of them look realy notable, a blog and youtube disqualify themselves, the newspaper articles are more or less passing mentions and the yelp review isn't that substantial as well (also it's user generated putting it in the same category as youtube and a blog). It's a close one I admit that but still a delete. On a related note:
1redrun's golden rule ^no1 - The noteworthiness of an article is inverse-proportional to the number of posts by the articles creator in an AFD discussion.
1redrun ^Talk 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, nice. Have you submitted that one to Raul's list of WikiLaws? GlassCobra 02:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most notable thing is that the food is bad? This counts as non-trivial information? Maybe trivial does have a relevant meaning in WP after all. No substantial reliable sources--nor would any be expected. DGG (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the chicken peglegs taste like wood; if the most favorable comment from a customer was "at least I won't get scurvy"; and if your restaurant has never been reviewed even in the local paper and your Wikipedia article has been deleted 3 times, going on 4... maybe you need a new person in charge of p.r. Mandsford 12:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, why are these sources non reliable? Newspapers seem reliable enough to me. (And I'm not all about the old media, regardless of what some people say, I think blogs can be reliable too.) And yes, this company seems horrible Mandsford. Really a bad apple, so to speak. But I don't think that means people can't look the company up in Wikipedia. It's not like they will be forced to see the page. It's here if they want it. Nesnad 13:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This question has been answered repeatedly. Is it worth anyone's time to type out the same reasons again, if you're just going to ignore them? Thomjakobsen 14:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomjakobsen, thanks for the feedback, but I see a lot of people claim things like "no famous people died there" or whatever, and other things, but no one has quoted where it says directly in policy that this isn't notable enough. Besides just saying "it isn't notable" or that they are "crappy restaurants". That's total POV and just because they are crap doesn't mean they are worth a delete, even though I think these places seem pretty crappy too... that doesn't mean it's not worth putting in Wikipedia. In fact, I talked to someone from Florida today way over here and asked him if he knew of this place. He had nothing but bad things to say about the place, said the owners were freaky and he thought it was a total tourist trap. However, crap does not equal something that can't have an article. I don't see why we can't have a little information on Wikipedia for the next person like me (and apparently others) who want information about this place. Clearly there are people that want more information about this place... and Wikipedia can provide information. Is that too weird? Nesnad 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, there are many other references out there. To back up the claim that the food is not well liked, I just added a reference to a small review in a book about Florida. Yes, it isn't a 100 page review on this place. But it is not just some directory listing. It is an actual short review including a mention of the infamous bad tasting food. Thanks. Nesnad 16:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we needn't duplicate Google. It's a very valuable resource for finding complaints on restaurants. Or even positive reviews. DGG (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, honestly no offense meant but thats a funny thing to argue. Google can find almost anything, does that mean that Wikipedia can't have an article about things Google can find? This article is not about bad tasting food. It is just trying to be NPOV and report what is said about this place. Further, there is a CNN reference on the page now. TV, Newspapers, Blogs.... What more does this article need to make the delete soldiers give it a chance? Thanks guys, Nesnad 16:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The alleged CNN reference is not a story about Pirate's Dinner Adventure. It is a story about tourism being down in the weeks after September 11, and that all the businesses in Orlando were suffering, including Disney, SeaWorld and the Visitors and Conventions Bureau. At the end of the piece the V.P. of Pirate's Dinner Adventure says they are marketing the restaurant to locals (since there were no tourists). One sentence. Two sentences if you count the lead in that introduces the Pirates VP. The piece gives substantially more attention to ANGELO GONZALEZ, TAXI DRIVER, than it does to this restaurant. Unfortunately Nesnad is still having a great deal of trouble with the meaning of the words: reliable sources and notability. Sigh.OfficeGirl 01:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughts Officegirl... Why is that not reliable? And correct me if I'm wrong but notable means worth of notice? If a company is interviewed by CNN, even if they aren't the only company interviewed, doesn't that make them worth notice? Notability does not equal famous. It means worthy of notice. Thats a quote from WP:N, is it not? Thanks. Nesnad 09:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I have added a biannual magazine and a business journal to the sources in this article. Is this finally enough? I think it is kind of getting ridiculous how the delete soldiers will not accept that with these many references in media (TV, newspaper, magazine, journal, blog) that someone is bound to type in the name of this place wanting more information. Please don't be offended by this if it seems rash of me to say, I'm just asking those in the "delete all old deleted articles" mentality to acknowledge the amount of places this company has popped up. This is notable. (And if you are getting internationally famous mixed up with notable, please don't. They aren't the same according to WP:N) Thanks for your time, Nesnad 16:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arrrr! Ye impressed me with yer efforts to improve the article, and I've changed me vote as listed above. Arrrr. Mandsford 17:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two newest references ( a small local Hispanic magazine article where the Pirates manager is one of four businessmen interviewed -- not so much about the restaurant as about being hispanic and in business-- and a brief local business journal article reporting that they came out of Chapter 11 and they are just one of several copycat theme restaurants competing for market share locally) are reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage, and the information contained therein acts as proof that Pirates is not notable. I love your enthusiasm, though, Nesnad. I'm going to figure out how to make some kind of a "be proud of me-- nobody tries harder than Nesnad!" barnstar award or something just for you. Sorry it hasn't gone better for your efforts this time around but your tenacity will eventually help save other articles on truly notable topics that need help. Check out the WP:ICU for articles that need someone like you to work on them.OfficeGirl 17:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mandsford. If you weren't trying to be sarcastic, I really wish to say thanks for the barnstar Officegirl. However, I really don't think you understand the concept of notable. Please read WP:N. I don't mean that as an offensive thing. I just mean it clearly states it has nothing to do with being famous. What does an article have to be to be notable for you? Someone famous has to have died there? No. Notable means people would want to look it up on Wikipedia. They would notice it. There are quite a few sources in media pointing to this place... This will lead to someone wanting this information. Wikipedia is information. I think it's important to establish all articles that lead to real information for the user. If we stay NPOV and add all valid sourced articles, weather we personally like the information or not, Wikipedia will someday be a source of even more amazing knowledge because of our desire to add sourced information to it ... and yes, yet another article here about Pirate's Dinner Adventure is a reference in the article. This one is specifically about Pirate's Dinner Adventure and it's on the other coast. That means we have articles on both coasts of the United States of America, Officegirl (et al.). Really, please help me add to this article if you want to use effort. Otherwise, please acknowledge the fact that this has enough reason to be in Wikipedia. Thanks, Nesnad 18:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: There is so much written about this place, here is another one for browsing. Very long indepth article with a lot of information in it that I can incorporate in to this article. (It's in Spanish, multilingual sources aren't a problem I hope.) Nesnad 19:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC) EDIT: And here is another article about this establishment. Same newspaper as another source, but written by a different author months later. I'm not sure why this article hasn't been acknowledged as notable yet. This is more references to substantial articles than more than half of the articles here on wikipedia! :) Nesnad 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. this is 10 to 3 in favour of delete for an article that has previously been deleted. Any passing Admin have any idea why the AfD has not yet been closed? Marcus22 12:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wikipedia policy says you can edit while the discussion is going on and I have. Most of the "deletes" were listed when this was a baby article with no references. I don' t think its fair to close now. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy so the ratio of for and against doesn't matter if thats what you were implying. If you will notice only one of the people hanging around has kept his/her vote as delete. I think people rush for delete, but if you think clearly and check my references, this is clearly sourced and notable. To say otherwise is to cling to dogma such as "once deleted it can't have value again"... Nesnad 12:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree you have put work in, I am rather fed-up with your name calling, Nesnad. We are "delete soldiers", we "rush for delete", we "cling to dogma", you imply we have not re-considered the article, you accuse people of "hanging around" (it's the 'watch' tab) etc.. Please refrain from these and similar comments. As far as I can see, there is nothing in the article which makes the place notable. Others have not yet changed their view. Perhaps they will. In which case, I accept their verdict. Or perhaps you are wrong? Have you considered that possibility? Marcus22 12:53, 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 keep. CitiCat^♫ 23:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Basham[edit]

This article was previously prodded, resulting a delete. It was nominated for speedy deletion, and although I feel it asserts some notability, I don't feel it meets WP:N. Maxim_(talk) 11:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of reliable sources for WP:N. The only two refs which don't point to parts of his own book seem to involve (presumably insubstantial) mentions of a church he was involved with and a magazine he edited, rather than attesting to his own notability. Thomjakobsen 14:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to a Keep: comments below seem to provide more than adequate printed sources. Thomjakobsen 11:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real notability established Corpx 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete! Don Basham was a key leader of an influential stream of charismatic christianity. New Wine magazine which Basham edited was the voice piece of the shepherding movement and promoted the teachings of Basham, Prince et al. - the magazine was at one time the most widely circulated charismatic magazine in the US (Synan, 2001). The movement that he co-founded and lead had some 100,000 adherents and 500 associated churches in 1982 (Synan, 2001). Basham and the other leaders (Derek Prince, Charles Simpson, Ern Baxter and Bob Mumford) were collectively known as the "Ft Lauderdale Five". A cursory look on the internet will throw up numerous references to Basham and the shepherding movement

Basham and this movement are analysed in numerous books, including (from the few I have):
Balmer, R., Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, Baylor University Press, 2004
Burkes, R., Damaged Disciples: Casualties of Authoritarian Churches and the Shepherding Movement, Zondervan, Michigan, 1992
Burgess et al., Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, Zondervan, Michigan, 1988
Diamond, S., Not By Politics Alone: The Enduring Influence of the Christian Right, The Guilford Press, London, 1998
MacArthur Jr. J. F., Charismatice Chaos, Zondervan Publishing House, Michigan, 1992
Moore, S D., The Shepherding Movement, Continuum International Publishing, Sheffield, 2004
Scotland, N., Charismatics and the New Millennium, Hodder & Stoughton, 1995
Smail et al., Charismatic Renewal: The Search for a Theology, SPECK, London, 1993
Synan, V, The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, Nelson, Nashville, 2001
Synan, V., The Holiness Pentecostal Tradition: Charismatic Movements in the 20th Century, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997
Mike Orchard 09:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.27.125 (talk) 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm judging by the notability of the publishers, and the editorship of New Wine, which is a significant publication--that ought to have a WP article.DGG (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletions. —Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 07:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Shepherding Movement If this is the Don Basham of the Fort Lauderdale Five and the Shepherding Movement, then that is notable and is likely to be in the sources listed by Orchard above (I've flicked through Burgess in the past and know of some others, but don't have access now). Mr Basham's heyday is before the Internet Age, but a quick Google turned up a claim of 150,000 members and a typically forthright comment from the liberal Daily Kos blog. Basham himself is a borderline case. Seektruthfromfacts 08:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hanging out for an article on Basham for ages. His influence was huge, and I never understood the lack of detail online esp on wikipedia. As you can see he's been written about in countless books and encyclopedias. A.J.Chesswas 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough in my opinion. Could do with a wikify and more refs that are "Independent of the subject" per WP:N. -- Alan Liefting talk 08:13, 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 Gnan garra 01:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airline complaints[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Deleted once, deletion review result was to relist but that was not done.

Airline complaints are complaints about airlines. That, plus some factoids on complaint rates, is about it here. Oh, and a section which implies that the Aviation Consumer Protection Service is the official Government complaints body - no it isn't, not where I live. Someoen has forgotten that USA <> world. But that's a minor matter.

There is nothing here that is not either original research, generic, obvious, or could be covered in another article. Guy (Help!) 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I think there is some potential for there to be a good article on this topic, but it needs a rewrite. Darkcraft 11:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DRV really blew this one - This is synthesis Corpx 17:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is about the formal complaint process not just generic "complaints about airlines". It is reasonably well sourced, and in its current state contains informations about UK and EU bodies as well as US. Needs improvement not deletion. Eluchil404 18:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be quite a major WP:SYNTH/WP:OR job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As I argued in the previous AfD, it is simply WP:NN. --Evb-wiki 20:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Referenced and it's an encyclopedic topic. --Oakshade 22:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The WP:SYNTH issue has already been discussed previously and it has been shown that it does not apply to this article. If you disagree, please explain specifically how it applies if mentioning it as a reason for deletion. You will have difficulty doing so since no part of this article is Original Research, a main component of WP:SYNTH. Regarding WP:NN as a reason for deletion, it is also incorrect since this is, in fact, a very notable subject matter. This subject matter is notable enough for the US Department of Transportation to have a specific section for "Airline Complaints" and for them to publish specific Airline Complaints figures, therefore meeting the "Significant Coverage" criteria of WP:NN. Considering the current size of the article, it is also very well referenced with 10 citations from highly reputable sources, meaning it is "Reliable" for the purposes of WP:NN. If you search Google for "Airline Complaints OR "Airline Complaint", there are over 60,000 very specific search results from very reputable sources and if you search the same terms within Google News, there are over 450 very specific articles, also from very reputable sources, therefore meeting the "Sources" criteria of WP:NN. Since most of the sources are "Independent of the Subject", this subject matter also meets the 4th and last criteria for WP:NN, completing its notability. As for the article itself, it is both informative and helpful as it stands, and will become more so as it grows. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely, and that's a prima facie reason for keeping it. At the end of the day, there is no real justification for deletion.--Sidarthian 23:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Isn't there an agency of the Federal gov't tasked with handling airline complaints? SolidPlaid 03:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Blank and start over Poorly written article that ~~imparts a little bit~~ might be replaced by something that has a lot of information in 10,000 words or less and might cite to some published ~~cites to a lot of internet~~ sources ~~that would be ~~don't make it any~~ more worthwhile. Mandsford 14:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Those are just content and WP:STYLE issues, not notability ones. --Oakshade 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's a notable topic. It just deserves better than this. Mandsford 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean, Keep and Rewrite, not Delete.--Sidarthian 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you persuaded me. Mandsford 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of Sidarthian's arguments that the subject is in fact notable--the title is a little unfortunate. DGG (talk) 05:19, 11 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. CitiCat^♫ 01:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Del Palmer[edit]

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

Musician/Engineer with assertions of notability but nothing listed to back them up. Most of the assertions seem to rely heavily on notability inheritance. Article doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:BAND WebHamster 11:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Han-Kwang (t) 14:49, 8 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. — TKD::Talk 08:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superoptimism[edit]

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

Violation of WP:OR This article was created by one of the two authors of the book cited as a reference. He left his name off the 'author' list. The book itself was published by a press that seems to only have this book on its list. The term 'superoptimism' does exist in psychology, where it seems to be used to refer to something likely to get drug addicts and criminals in trouble - not the topic of this article. Anarchia 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I agree that this ought to have more sources than one that has royalties associated with it, as you point out, this is used in psychology. It reminds me of this one guy who recently nominated an article for deletion-- he said it was "a win/win situation" because if it was a good concept, it improved, and if it was a bad concept, it was removed. Mandsford 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research; not notable; COI. Han-Kwang (t) 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR and essay. The subject that is notable is not the subject being discussed. Only the title is the same. DGG (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. No secondary sources have been provided to support the inclusion of this article. Banno 23:02, 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 Gnan garra 00:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata[edit]

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

WP:WEB -- Non-notable game, especially as far as MMORPGs go with only ~400 players + WP:OR --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Someone made a point of me not creating a nom vote (for want of a better word) so here it is.

Weak Delete as I have my doubts whether those review sites are reliable sources Corpx 17:03, 8 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. CitiCat^♫ 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of brigades in the Israeli Defence Forces[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of brigades in the Israeli Defence Forces

Articles for deletion/List of brigades in the Israeli Defence Forces (2nd nomination)

List of brigades in the Israeli Defence Forces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This list serves no function, is un-maintained and the information is available elsewhere. RichyBoy 10:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Disappointing article that purports to be a "navigation page", but could just as well be merged back into the main article. You don't need a navigation page for something with nine items on it. Mandsford 12:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it can be expanded to at least the 11 items of Category:Brigades of Israel and maybe more there are 10 brigades including defunct ones on the Armour corps page alone. To be disappointed with the article means that you had expectations of it. Think of all articles as works in progress, what is lacking in this article as it stands and can this be added to this article? Personally I think list articles have an edge over categories in that short descriptions can be added to aid navigation and you don't have to trawl through every item to find the one you want. Also items which do not yet have their own article can be red linked to indicate the need for an article to be created.KTo288 14:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are all notable units, so I think this serves a valid navigational purpose Corpx 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (see below) Delete All of KTo288's points may be true in theory, but what we have is a simple list of items that currently works no better than a category. The onus is on those who want to keep the page to prove it's useful, it seems to me. And trawling through eight or nine articles may be just as necessary with the list in existence as without. Noroton 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I changed my vote because Davewild has improved the list just enough to make it more useful to keep than delete. Noroton 17:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have done some work on the list splitting between current and former brigades and added some basic information on each. This list now provides more information than the category does and meets WP:LIST for aiding navigation and now having some structure (former and current). These are very notable formations and a list serves a good prupose. Davewild 10:35, 9 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 as copyvio. CitiCat^♫ 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PTC124[edit]

PTC124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Was speedy delete as nonsense, but Google search seems to show that the drug PTC124 exists. Anthony Appleyard 10:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of Completely rewrite. I have requested the speedy delete. The article is just a copy paste of the summary of a scientific article. Note that there is a line "The authors contributed equally to this article". My opinion is if this drug is notable enough for wikipedia, and that's a question too, someone has to try to write it from the beginning. Otherwise, it must be deleted. -- Magioladitis 10:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy tagging as a copyviolation. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 05:36, 10 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. Maxim_(talk) 13:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Need for Speed characters[edit]

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

A list of characters from a video game, with no sources other than a couple of bits of speculation from a fan forum. I'd dispute these being characters per se, actually, they don't seem to have much actual characterisation. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Related wikipedia articles are sources. How can you say they aren't characters? What are they then? --MrStalker ^talk 09:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use another Wikipedia article as a source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Really? I can't find that paragraph. Can you please point me to it? --MrStalker ^talk 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
What are they then? - Mostly, from the descriptions, the video-game equivalents of the Microsoft Office Talking Paper Clip. --Calton | Talk 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~O'rly? That's just ignorant. --MrStalker ^talk 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Impressive and devastating use of rhetoric, there. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. --MrStalker ^talk 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a useful page. It doesn't need too many references. I really don't see what the problem is with this article.Darkcraft 11:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being useful is not a reason to keep an article. Epbr123 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better question: useful for what, exactly? And why doesn't it need references? --Calton | Talk 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, most of the facts in there don't require references. Nobody is going to challenge 'Samantha drives a Honda Civic Si Coupe' or any of the many similar facts. I would find this article helpful if I were into Need for Speed, and I wanted to find out more about the characters. You should not decide to delete an article just because it doesn't have enough information yet, which seems to be what some of you are saying. The nomination in the first place seems to be baseless, without any proper reasons for deletion.Darkcraft 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So whether something is challengeable is the standard for requiring refs? But more to the point, how do you know, to use your example, it's a Honda Civic Si Coupe? And no, it's not a question of whether it "has enough information yet", it's whether that information is worth anything and/or whether that missing, actually reliable, information can POSSIBLY be obtained. --Calton | Talk 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you only need references for facts that are likely to be challenged. We aren't supposed to reference everything on Wikipedia because, well, it would just be ridiculous. Just because an article isn't good yet, that does not mean it should be deleted. Give it a chance to improve or we will never find out.Darkcraft 13:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Darkcraft.CheckeredFlag200 01:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 12:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not just O.R. by someone who pauses the game to take notes, but one of those "buy-the-product" articles. Did the author need, or get, permission to do the "motion capture" pictures? If you want to meet the characters, drive around and let them talk to you. Mandsford 12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Kerotan ^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 13:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And like he said, I'm not seeing anything resembling actual characterization.

Strongest Keep This article can be improved. I dont see any reason why it has to be deleted. --SkyWalker 15:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a fact-based rather than a faith-based reason? --Calton | Talk 16:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of fact do you need?. Why not check this category to see how many character list are available for all other game Category:Lists of video game characters?. Why cant need for speed have its own article?.--SkyWalker 18:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of fact do you need? I dunno, maybe for This article can be improved - which, unless you offer something resembling evidence and not handwaving, constitutes an article of faith and not an actual argument. And the last two sentences are rebutted by this page. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral No notability for any of these characters is established, but they do use real world actors to play these lead character roles. Corpx 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a list of fictional characters from a well-known series. Sources aren't needed.CheckeredFlag200 18:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC) And besides, look. If this is deleted, every single character list page on Wikipedia will be deleted. So deleting this page will be COMPLETELY pointless.CheckeredFlag200 23:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a particularly bad version of the old WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about THAT argument. The page doesn't need sources, as ALL the information is covered in the Need For Speed series. Besides, there are several Wikipedia articles which are similar to this which do not have sources (e.g. List of Backyard Kids).71.92.70.77 19:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be 99%+ Original Research - fchd 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little OR in this, almost everything in the article is explicitly stated in the games.Darkcraft 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator (JzG). --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So...delete because the article doesn't have sources? That isn't a reason for deletion.Darkcraft 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, per WP:NOR. No sources is the same as original research. --MrStalker ^talk 15:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in particular delete because we have an article Need for Speed that covers this subject quite well. Spending effort describing elements that amount to avatars of the software, and have no independent verification, seems unnecessary. If you play the game you will encounter these character. If you do not, you will not, and the cost to you of not knowing about them is zero. They are only relevant if you play the game, and if the producers of the game have not bothered to produce some kind of manual this encyclopedia is not the site to use to fill in the gaps. Write it up on your blog. --Tony Sidaway 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All right. Here is an argument which shows that it should keep. Aren't there Wikipedians (like me) around who want to know about the characters without getting all the actual games to learn information about them? Information for free is better than getting all the games for at least $500.131.215.108.218 22:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted to meet the characters, I guess I would rent the game for a day or two. (In all fairness, Need for Speed is pretty fun, on several levels). On the other hand, if I had no intention of even looking at the game, I doubt I would want to learn much more about it. Mandsford 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BUT THIS IS WIKIPEDIA!!!131.215.108.218 23:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and on wikipedia we have to follow guidelines like WP:NOR. --MrStalker ^talk 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that to follow WP:NOR, we have to say that the facts come from the actual games in which they are in!131.215.108.218 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And don't some people actually want to know about the characters? Mandsford, you are selfish.131.215.108.218 22:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And isn't this list better on Wikipedia than articles about every single episode of The Simpsons???131.215.108.218 23:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's no worse. I don't care for all the individual articles about The Simpsons either. Save the article on your computer. Or print it out. Or even cut and paste it onto a Need for Speed forum or into another Need for Speed article like "Liberty City" (I think that's one of the towns in NFS). Selfish though I am, I respect you for fighting to keep the article, and for writing part of it. But I think your argument (that people who won't play "Need for Speed" still want to know about the characters) isn't very persuasive. You've read the entire article by now (assuming you didn't write it in the first place), and... now that you know about the characters, do you intend to refer back to the article on other occasions? Or, more likely, are you going to rent or buy one of the Need For Speed games, play it, and develop your own impressions of those same characters? Like I say, save the article to your computer. Nearly all of us have written something that got deleted, and that's part of their system.... but it's far better to have written something and seen it published here for awhile, even if it's eventually rejected. Far better than submitting something for consideration and never seeing it published. 131, you've got talent as a writer. Get yourself an account (it's free) so you can have a screen name, and start creating. Remember, having something on Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. Mandsford 00:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Libery City is a city in the Grand Theft Auto series, not the Need for Speed series. Saying something like that is close to blasphemy. --MrStalker ^talk 11:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

131.215.108.218 (actually me) did not write any part of the page.71.92.70.77 01:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am a sockpuppet - just to tell you - I am CheckeredFlag200. I would definitely refer back to the article rather than get the game, as I don't want to waste my time buying things from Half.com.71.92.70.77 01:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article needs sourcing, no doubt, but there isn't any original research going on here; this is stuff directly from the games. The characters in the games aren't exactly hugely complex, but they are indicated in the game's cutscenes and other material. The problem here isn't that the characters aren't relevant to the game, it's that the article isn't sourced. Source, then keep. If sourcing isn't possible, delete. Xihr 08:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article itself cannot be used as a source. See WP:RS. --MrStalker ^talk 09:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it can be. I'm pointing out why some of the delete arguments being made are invalid. The article needs sourcing, however the claims of original research and lack of characterization so this is all made up are false. Xihr 09:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the information cannot be referenced to a reliable third party source, it's original research. --MrStalker ^talk 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was approached to close here, looking into the article this provides one independent source to one listed character. I have an issue with the claim made in this source that Krystal Forscutt is the first Australian to be a character in an EA game because EA games have been making ARL and AFL games since 1994(thats my WP:OR) so under the circumstances I'll refrain from closing. Gnan garra 12:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? --MrStalker ^talk 12:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was a reliable source, the coverage is too trivial. It only refers to one of the characters, and the news article is centred around the actress rather than the character. Epbr123 12:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. How the **** does that translate into refraining from closure? --MrStalker ^talk 12:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the concerns raised were as a result of your request to be fair I'll check for more sources now. Gnan garra 13:20, 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 Redirected to List of Castlevania characters#Supporting characters just as AfD opened, no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Fahrenheight[edit]

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

In-universe and wholly unsourced description of a character that "doesn't have any specific appearances". Reads as a personal essay. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close - Someone redirected it just before AFD opened. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 11:12, 8 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. — TKD::Talk 07:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anima d20 Campaign Setting[edit]

Anima d20 Campaign Setting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Without references or assertion of notability, I suspect this falls under WP:NFT, unless the contributor somehow is referring to d20 Anime (which itself isn't particularly notable.) Marasmusine 09:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating these related articles:

Dryad (Anima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saria, Goddess of Nature (Anima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete per not game guide Corpx 16:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Postoak 21:34, 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. DS 15:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Raj?[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, and no references to suggest otherwise Yngvarr 08:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The article has been created by a sockpuppet of a known vandal who creates erroneous content. --treelo _talk 11:34, 8 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Teleserye[edit]

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

Listcruft. Redundant to List of programs broadcast by GMA Network, List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN etc. Should be deleted per WP:NOT. Danngarcia 08:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per reasons stated by the nominator. List is horribly redundant. Might not even be useful as a category, much less a real list. Shrumster 11:20, 12 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. — TKD::Talk 07:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Fe and The Fat City Horns[edit]

Santa Fe and The Fat City Horns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability, spam-ish article content, over a year old with no reliable independent sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.This band is a current and exciting part of the Las Vegas music community. I have updated its page with a couple of lines about its newest CD release. I will do a little more appropriate research and add, as appropriate.

Andy

DELETE: "Current and exciting part of (any) community" is not the notability standard contemplated by Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougieb (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, has had plenty of time to produce sources/expand article for notability, but still nothing. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 07:32, 8 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. WjBscribe 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reed-Johnson Residence Hall[edit]

Reed-Johnson Residence Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I fail to see what makes this particular residence hall notable and worthy of an article. I would be happy to keep this article if there was a chance that we could prove it notable enough for inclusion, but I don't see that happening. Surely there are more notable things at NDSU that should have their own articles before a non-notable residence hall complex has one. MatthewUND^(talk) 07:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is only a hall of NDSU, and therefore it could be merged into that article, but I don't see its significance. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 07:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly, unless adecuate references are provided I fail to see how this particular residence hall is notable enough. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough to warrant own article -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As dormcruft with no assertion of notability. Acroterion _(talk) 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I go to NDSU and even I think this not notable enough to have its own article. --NDState 18:18, 12 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 List of Rozen Maiden episodes#Rozen Maiden träumend. — TKD::Talk 07:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice (Rozen Maiden episode)[edit]

Alice (Rozen Maiden episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - Plot Summaries. KojieroSaske 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - entirely plot summary, failing WP:NOT#PLOT. As per WP:EPISODE, if the episode has no real world coverage by verifiable third party sources, it should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#PLOT. --Hirohisat ^Kiwi 07:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is needed and it explains the final episode of Ro--oh what the heck, delete it! DELETE! I must say that it is fairly uneeded

Sir aaron sama girl 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but plot. Even if we found this episode to be a notable topic, it's far more likely that we'd write a better plot summary from scratch. -- Ned Scott 04:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rozen Maiden episodes. In its current form, the article is nothing more then a plot summery that violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --Farix (Talk) 17:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, nothing but plot. Jay32183 03:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is entirely summary. It reads more like an ad for the episode than an encyclopedia entry. Cerevox 22:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete it immedeatley. It is unneeded

Sir aaron sama girl 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways Flight 358[edit]

Thai Airways Flight 358 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article subject cannot be verified by Reliable Sources, despite concerted effort by Aviation accident task force‎. Dali-Llama 03:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD under former name is here.

Delete. Further to user:Dalillama, this article appears to be about an incident that never happened. Whether this is a deliberate hoax or a good faith mistake, I'm not entirely sure. There was a non-notable (in the encyclopedic sense) minor collision that is similar to the story here, but with different flight numbers (see the article talk page). The episode of the show Mayday that supposedly describe this incident may also be a hoax and is being investigated. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Mostly appears sourced from the Mayday showing (source of debatable quality), which appear to be directly refuted by other quality sources per the talk page and previous AFD. May just meet a notability threshold because of the Mayday showing but would vote to redirect the entry to a proper Thai Airways Flight 602 article or Thai Airways International#Incidents and accidents. Zedla 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayday article is probably a hoax.As far as I can tell, there were only 10 episodes in season 4, and this is supposedly in episode 12 (I've commented the episode out). There has never been a Mayday episode on Flight 602. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Though I'm not 100% sure it is a hoax the article doesn't even say which episode of Mayday this accident was supposedly featured. The article's reference doesn't seem to mesh with what's going on in the stills. It discusses the incident as minor and I couldn't find anything else about it on "The Nation". Plus the cabin photo with the deployed masks claims to be from the TV show yet the pic is credited to the author of this article who was supposedly aboard Flight 358. If the computer generated stills and this photo show the same plane I'd expect to see some daylight where the cabin was ripped open by the wing based on the sunlight coming through the windows visible. I sort of have a problem with the sunlight too considering this accident was supposed to have happened at 19:50 on 19 April and the USNO says the sun that day was already set:
The following information is provided for Bangkok (longitude E100.5, latitude N13.8):

Tuesday 19 April 2005
Universal Time + 7h

SUN
Begin civil twilight 05:41
Sunrise 06:03
Sun transit 12:17
Sunset 18:32
End civil twilight 18:54

Anynobody 05:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable event morphed into a hoax by this edit by a user describing a catastrophic explosion that nobody in the media seemed to notice. The article's talk page goes into sufficient depth about researchers being unable to locate any mention of such an incident, even if you use the correct flight number, and Anynoby's comments above seem pretty compelling. Neil916 (Talk) 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - superb sleuthing. Appears to be a non-notable accident transformed into a hoax. --Haemo 06:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If based on a episode of the tv series a redirect might be appropiate, if not since it doesn't appear real specially since a quick search only points back here, so deletion per WP:HOAX appears adecuate. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it is a hoax, then it should be deleted as per WP:HOAX, WP:N, and WP:V. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the investigations conducted on the talk page, I am totally convinced that we have a hoax here. Ironicaly, my opinion in the original AfD was to keep - but then, we believed it had actually happened at that point. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) per nom and my earlier comments on the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose 12:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This sounds suspiciously like another "two planes collided in Thailand and caught on fire and everybody escaped before it exploded" article that we voted on last month. Either lightning must strike twice in Bangkok, or it's a hoax by someone who doesn't like Thai Airways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 12:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same article. Link to old AfD added below nom. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Any real accident of this magnitude would have actual news coverage. The policy wonks have gone mad sending stuff like this to AfD. Things like this should have be speedied to avoid wasting time. There's nothing to discuss here. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (again) per nom, per talk page discussion at article. No verifiable sources confirm article claims, and the apparent real incident would probably not pass notability standards. More to the point, though, strong evidence that this is a hoax. Sacxpert 18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block user for a period of time. No such accident occured on 19 April 2005. UTAFA 21:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The anonymous user who has spent some time editing this article is currently blocked. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:14, 8 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. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centre Avenue[edit]

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

Notability not asserted for this road, about which there was apparently not much else to say other than that it exists. wikipediatrix 03:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete unless significance established. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, and I can't dig up anything encyclopedic about it. Neil916 (Talk) 05:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The street doesn't look notable even though it is near the Mellon Arena.--JForget 23:33, 10 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. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BeaveRun Motorsports Complex[edit]

BeaveRun Motorsports Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable car-racing entertainment venue. Fails WP:CORP. wikipediatrix 03:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Keep'~~ About 130 hits on Google news archive All relevant. Some including NYTIMEs and AP. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidered. Delete per nom, fails wp:corp. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim

Any local business that puts on constant events, however dinky, is going to garner regular newspaper mentions, but does that still make them notable? If so, anyone and anything can get on Wikipedia by simply holding weekly events and guaranteeing that they're listed in events sections of papers regularly. Also, many of these news entries are mirrors of the same story and same press release. wikipediatrix 17:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Looks like a local race track... Do any of the major racing series visit them? Corpx 16:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be a notable complex.--JForget 23:34, 10 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. WjBscribe 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pierce (actor)[edit]

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

Unsourced bio of minor actor. No significant roles or real-world impact. PROD and notability tags added, but removed by User:Oakshade with the comment Being an actor in Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard is an assertion of notability. Yes, everyone remembers his groundbreaking roles as "Corporal Spivey" and "Dan". Wikipedia not being the Directory of Actors Who Probably Haven't Quit Their Day Jobs, this needs to go.Calton | Talk 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor actor, no particular notability. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I see no indication that any of these were starring roles. Google news archive has about 15 hits. I see no intimation of meeting WP:BIO Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:17, 8 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. (other than to cleanup) CitiCat^♫ 21:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Walk Networking[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Great Walk Networking

Articles for deletion/Great Walk Networking (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Great Walk Networking (3rd nomination)

Great Walk Networking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is the 3rd nomination. There was a mix up with the first nomination. It was nomination for COI but withdrawn, so I nominated with the 2nd AFD. But then the first was changed nomination for notibility, so the 2nd AFD was correctly closed as AFD's too quickly. The last keep discussion the concensus was basically that notibility would be established, but the article was too new. None of claimed notability that resulted in the keep was ever added the article, it is now months later and it is time to delete it.

My main reason for nominating are: WP:COI and Notibility.
Notibility: The article shows no sources for anything in it, instead it just lists some references at the end. The article has just 3 sources for reference. None of which establish notibility in any way. The first one talks about an ideal of the club, it has nothing to do with the club itself, the club is in no way mentioned in the reference. The second reference is legal bill in the house sittings, the club gets a passing mention as one of many many clubs that were talked with by the government on establishment of the borders of the national park and its walking track. Hundreds of clubs are mentioned in the document. No notability is asserted here. The 3rd reference merely a link to the Australia Buisness register, just because the buiness exists doesn't mean its notable.
In the further reading section we seen a lot of links. Many have nothing to do with great networking but just to do with saving the forest etc. The books about great networking in the library are required by law as the documents for the non profit organisation, every organization has them in WA. No notibility here at all.

The 'media' section is merely a mention of their own document, which they had made themselves and has not been shown on any stations of notable audience.

Clearly this article completely fails WP:ORG "is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."

As for the conflict of interest, it should be obvious that several of the authors of the page are admitted members of the club. Most of the document is unsourced (indeed as I have said above the reference mention NOTHING that is in the article). One of the editors is User:Greatwalk who created the page himself and has continually added content with no sources what so ever. The main reason for the COI is that the article makes alot of claims and gives the impression it is responsible for alot of the major walks - when it is not, they are walks involving many groups.

After over 6 months of not providing any decent sources nor establishing notibility, I think it is time it gets deleted. I urge only independant people to examine the page and club, so as to avoid what happened last time, when all the great walk members came to support the club with huge statements and no hard proof of any sources or notibility. Dacium 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of nomination - Does not meet notability standards, and has a WP:COI. Recommend deletion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (My actual !vote now) The essay above does appear to be correct. The first reference does not mention the club at all, the second only does so in passing, and the third only acknowledges that it exists, which isn't a claim to notability. I can't find any reliable hits on Google after several attempts to re-word the searching to get it to work out. Neutrality concerns can be cleaned up, but that's irrelevant if we don't have any information to go off of. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Longhair\^talk 13:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Delete Out of the gate, i'm going to say WP:HOLE. I live in Western Australia and have been for 22 years, am a reasonably well read and informed person, and also eariler this year have taken up a position in the public sector directly related to forestry activities - and I've never heard of them at all. I've also taken the liberty of calling one of my colleagues, a long time community consultation coordinator on forestry issues, and the sum total of their notability is one very small footnote in the history of the issues, and had it not been for the insane level of information in this article I would not have been able to give him enough detail to remember it. I concur with the nominator, who has gone to great lengths to set out the case for deletion. Not withstanding the obvious issues of WP:COI as identified, a large majority of the information seems to contain a level of bias and lacks referencing beyond what is reasonably acceptable. Despite reasonable time being given to correct the problems identified through the previous AfD debates, no action has been forthcoming to resolving them. Label this article for the variation of cruft it is and be done with it. Thewinchester ^(talk) 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clearly notable, meets WP:N and WP:RS per secondary sources (the article mentions two The West Australian articles, both of which I've managed to find - including an entire 2-page article dedicated to it, a surprising amount of attention from the State's normally conservative newspaper of record to the 10th anniversary of a walk through the bush!) - the State Library of Western Australia hosts several items related to them including their newsletter as printed, and while the 1988 newspapers haven't been consulted, I'm fairly sure if I was to look when I'm in the Battye Library in the next few days I'd find something fairly quickly. If I do, I'll add it. I hadn't heard of this organisation prior to the last AfD, and didn't vote in said, but I tend to think that if something meets our policies and there is no good reason to remove it, then we shouldn't. WP:COI in itself is not a reason to delete, and there does not appear to be a significant COI issue, as is clearly documented on the talk page. Other editors with considerable Wikihistory have significantly contributed to the page. Orderinchaos 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with their being an article for Great Walk Network, but it needs to be stubified. The problem is there is a huge amount of information in the document that is completely without any sources what so ever that practially all content needs to be deleted. From the sources available one could merely just say they are some registered conservation based association. The rest of it could be completely made up.--Dacium 07:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the 1998 article alone, together with the sort of uncontroversial basic information which can be sourced from primary, would be enough to provide a lot of the details. Will be interesting to see what the 1988 papers say. Note that essentially you are not arguing deletion, but cleanup, and this would have been much better achieved with the appropriate tags. Orderinchaos 07:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the further reading section is evidence of notability and verifiability. Obscurity != Lack of notability. Also, the COI was considered in the first nomination and deemed not an issue. user:Dacium was the only person whose delete vote was left on the first Afd. John Vandenberg 13:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystified why a third delete process is required when above it appears that a cleanup tag could have sufficed. There are newer tags being used by some admins that challenge even well referenced articles to actually put citations into the articles to show the connections between the references and the assertions. It would seem much better for process to abandon the afd - and replace the afd tag with a cleanup tag - and then if orderinchaos and others can tie assertions with the references - we can get on with something more positive than worrying about an obscure western australian environmental organisation that did and have affect and participation in the community. It does feel like fiddling while wikipedia is burning. Satu Suro 13:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the initial contributor to this article. I think the main point of this call for afd is (again) related to the idea that newspaper articles don't suffice for some people as adequate reference under WP:N guidelines, but they do. Offline, hard source library material should be strongly supported on Wiki. The first three references do not form the backbone of the references made available and it is quite wrong to dwell on these references when there are clearly West Australian references that meet guidelines for notability on their own. I should also say that this organisation's involvement in the conservation movement is clearly historical, although it is still active...the substantial (and, in one case, two page long) West Australian references are from Great Walk's tenth anniversary walk and there are many more references to events in 1988 that I haven't been back to the library to reference. Thewinchester couldn't have as easily taken a trip to the library as 'ask a friend' perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact the references exist and meet WP:N and WP:RS, nor do I believe that word of mouth should replace library research. This article is clearly incomplete, but if those concerned believe they have 'offered time' to clean the article up, then it should have been tagged for a cleanup, not deletion. WP:COI is not an issue at this point since the article did reach consensus to keep in the first afd (although I have greater insight into what caused initial concern as a more experienced editor now) and also others have both contributed to the article and cross-referenced it since. User: Dacium makes a completely erroneous claim that article contributors or participants in afd debates are, or have been, members of this organisation...they are, for the most part, all long term editors on Wiki. There is a history of conservation movements in Western Australia and this organisation is a verifiable and notable part of that history. --Greatwalk^Talk 17:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OIC. Twenty Years 14:55, 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 and possibly rename (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 12:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Education[edit]

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

Only contains a vague definition of "community education", appears to address a Scottish perspective, so could perhaps be renamed "Community education in Scotland", though would still need rewriting. I vote to delete. Jonathan Oldenbuck 11:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs expansion (it is, after all, a stub), but the subject is definitely notable, and the current revision is so brief that it doesn't make improvements difficult to perform. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Seems like a promising stub. I would hesitate to rename (based on the Scottish perspective) since that would only reduce the subject's general relevance and notability. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could be a good article with some hard work. Djmckee1 - Talk-Sign 20:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong, SPEEDY delete There isn't even enough here to make a stub. There's not even a valid, informative definition of the term "Community Education" as it is meant by the article's creator. "People study this topic in school" is not helpful information. There's not even one reliable source offered. Let's clear this one off the encyclopedia and send the article's creator back to the drawing board. A "good idea for an article" is not the same as a "good article" and not even the same as a stub. If someone thinks of a good topic for an article but can't do enough work to get the article off to a proper start, then the place to go is Wikipedia:Requested articles. This is not even a "good start." Sorry.OfficeGirl 04:14, 1 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, KrakatoaKatie 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, has just enough for a stub but really needs some desperate expansion and referencing. Wouldn't recommend moving either, for the reason stated by SheffieldSteel. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can't just delete something because it is a poorly written stub, that would be silly. Darkcraft 12:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand The first Google hist for "Community Education" include several outside Scotland so this shouldn't be made Scottish specific. Timrollpickering 12:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged it for WP:ICU as the subject is apparentely notable but the article is clearly lacking. I'll try to work on it today. 1redrun ^Talk 09:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this is an important concept in education, even though it is defined differently in different education systems. There are enough good sources. Article is in intensive care, good idea. Itsmejudith 15:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Retitle and expand The current name derives from a primitive version of the article. From Google Scholar,[10] the standard terminology is "community-based education" This may have accounted for some of the difficulty in sourcing. I have added some references with freely-accessible full-text as a start.DGG (talk) 16:59, 11 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. Bduke 09:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shraga Hager[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. His unnoteable achievements are unsourced. (His tisch is is in the basemant of Satmar? Enough said.) Yeshivish 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Yeshivish 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Yeshivish 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A noted religious leader, worthy of a Wikipedia article. This Jewish Rabbi is equivalent to a Roman Catholic Bishop and there are several such articles. This article satisfies the notability guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (people). To delete it, we must clearly identify which criteria in that article that are not satisfied. Truthanado 02:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay, let's go through Wikipedia:Notability (people) and see if he passes:

"The person has been the subject of published^[11] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.^[12]"? NO

"The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography" ? NO

"The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" ? NO

"The person has demonstrable wide name recognition " ? NO

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.^[13]" ? NO

Has the person any "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" ? NO

Well you might say he is considered a "Creative professional." So let's look at that standard:

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" ? NO

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique"

Has "The person 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" ? NO

"The person's work either (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" ? NO

--Yeshivish 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is YES on all those criteria, the Jewish Press is enough a reliable newspaper to source it for Wikipedia.--יודל 13:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, since you put it that way, Delete. 000 hits Google news archive. (Would you believe it, I get 2 for my real name.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete no significant coverage Corpx 05:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I count well over a hundred results--יודל 13:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A dayan is a significant position, which may be noteworthy. The lack of source is of great concern, but there may be sources which are not online. Jon513 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Most dayanim (including Hager) are insignificant. Compare it to the American judicial system where most judges are unnoteworhty. --Yeshivish 23:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but he is also known for hasidic rebbe and spiritual leader not only as a judge--יודל 13:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Changed to Keep - I haven't researched this one yet, but Kosov (Hasidic dynasty), while small compared to Chabad-Lubavitch or Satmar, is a legitimate Hassidic dyanasty with a long history. If the group is notable, then its leader, whom the group regards as an important figure, would seem to be notable as well. It seems to me we should either be deleting both articles (this and Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) or keeping both. The "peers" of a religious figure are the faithful of that individual's denomination, so if the denomination is notable, the leader is as well. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Changed to Keep because it's very clear that the Kossover dynasty while small is notable and deserves its article, and it's been established that Rabbi Hager is its Grand Rabbi and head, hence as head of a notable religious denomination ("denomination" is an inexact analogy) an article is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With all due respect, you are wrong. Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) goes back until the beginnings of Chasidus. The dynasty had great and renown leaders. It is, therefore, a no-brainer that the dynasty is notable. However, Shraga Hager just calls himself the Kosover Rebbe. His connections to the dynasty is unknown, and it's possible that there is no connection. It's also likely that there are a bunch more people calling themselves the "Kossover Rebbe" (I don't know how familiar you are with the contemporary rebbes). --Yeshivish 05:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shraga Hager does not just call himself the Kosover Rebbe, he is recognized by the whole Hasidic world with this title, just because the Hasidic newspapers don't publish their reports online and i cannot link to them, it does not mean its unverifiable, if u open the daily Hamodia or Der Yid, Der Blatt or The Zeitung u see him mentioned by this title in every single Jewish controversy, he is the biggest Hasidic rabbi who is also a big Possek, and the article well establishes his connection to the dynasty.--יודל 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unsubstantiated remark by Yeshivish that that there are a bunch more people calling themselves the "Kossover Rebbe" borders on the scurrilous. The article references a source showing Shraga Hager's patrilineal descent from the founders of and succeeding leaders of the Kosov dynasty. That in itself is probably sufficient to ensure notability. --Redaktor 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Miamite 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep he is the one and ony hasidic Rabbi who has built his own following from scratch and did not inherit any shull, he is a self made very prominent leader and very active and noticeable in Boro Park today, there is 2 Jewish Press links proving this its hard to bring more because most of the newspaper clippings are in Yiddish and not online--יודל 12:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Keep'. I will try later (if/when I have time) to bring supporting evidence as to why.--Shmaltz 14:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about you hold your vote until you can provide this evidence? At the moment, other editors cannot assess why Rabbi Hager would be notable. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors who cannot establish his notability is only because they don't consider him notable many and plenty of users do indeed recognize his notability so he does not need to make time to prove it to u again.--יודל 15:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment we have three sources: a blog post and a mention in passing in the Jewish Press. That is insufficient to establish his notability. JFW | T@lk 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a mention in passing, not every Rabbi who marries off his child has a report to make to the news headlines in the Jewish media. He does! Because he is so notable that his daughter's wedding is news, and not only in the Hasidic media, but in a modern orthodox Jewish Newspaper like the Jewish Press. Look for the headline Kosover Galante Chasunah[14]--יודל 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without prejudice for recreation later if notability is established. John Carter 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I'm really quite astonished that there is even a discussion here. The article makes no sourced or verified claim of notability, even if he is the Rebbe of this sect (and I don't doubt that he is) that does not make him independently notable. He objectively fails nearly every qualification of WP:BIO and simply does not meet criteria for inclusion. For goodness sakes, I come closer to notability under WP guidelines then he does. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yeshivish has brought to my attention a major hole in the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline--there are no criteria for religious leaders. There are criteria for politicians, athletes, entertainers, and artists. And yet, the head of a notable religious organization would seem notable by virtue of being the head of a notable religious organization. In this case, as a small but notable Hasidic group living largely out of the public eye, it's not surprising that we would find little on the internet about its leader or even the group. Should it really necessitate something like "Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products" to make a religious leader notable? --MPerel 15:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Agree that religious figures need a notability guideline in their own right. Will try and come up with something. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A rough early draft started at Wikipedia:Notability (religious figures). Best --Shirahadasha 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a chasidic leader who is proactive in endorsing an internet filtering service, he is immediately notable. --Redaktor 17:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is a very prominent Hasidic Rebbe in Boro Park who helps all kinds of Jews - he feers a very nice tish - he acquired a new synagogue now and will soon move into it Itzik18 17:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yeshivish--Truest blue 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Kosover Rebbe is a famous Grand Rabbi of the Kosov Hasidic dynasty (Galician roots), very well known all around the Jewish community. --Mibelz 20:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the article currently does lack some of the requirements to pass WP:BIO, I am of the opinion that Heads of Chasidic dynasties, in their world/social strata/religious circle in general are sufficiently notable. I would Keep subject to cleanup-better sources provided Avi 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the Kosover are notable, then he is. It is perhaps not the best known dynasty to the non-Hassidim, but it is certainly well-known enough. The analogy above to Bishop is of course not exact, but it does represent the importance. I note that the Jewish Press] is the leading NYC Orthodox newspaper, and a RS, even if Google News is narrow-minded enough not to cover it. Our scope is wider that GN, or even Google. DGG (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mibelz, DGG, and MPerel. Jamie Guinn 22:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because if he is the Rebbe of the Kosov (Hasidic dynasty) and heads it then he is notable and is important in the world of Hasidic Judaism, a very complex realm -- how they inherit, lead, lose or gain their leadership is often-times covered in the fog of history and inscrutable happenings (the proverbial "Rebbeshe maises") not seen or understood by the outside world. It does not matter where he holds his "tishen" ("public celebrations") and many Hasidic groups and dynasties overlap by marriage and all sorts of complex allaiaes. In any case the "basements" of most Satmar shulls in Brooklyn are often huge halls big enough for wedding celebrations, so perhaps the language in the article needs amending (which I have now fixed), but not deletion based on such an insignificant detail. In addition, the article does cite some links, which in cases like this are very important because the web does NOT have information about this and there are no books and newspapers that "preach" about Hasidim, at the same time that the Hasidic world undergoes rapid growth and expansion which Wikipedia cannot afford to ignore, as long as article are written from a NPOV one can be patient till subsequent editors will improve them. Note: Articles about Hasidic Rebbes, Dynasties and subjects have been written with great care over a great amount of time by many editors with specialized knowledge about the subject. No-one should be hasty to tamper with them without first contacting Judaic studies editors who can verify the contents before jumping to delete the article, which can only harm the development of one of the best NPOV compendiums of knowldge and information about Rebbes and Hasidim of all kinds that is now taking place on Wikipedia. IZAK 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, watch out for WP:OWN. But of course people should not rush to delete articles in areas where they have no knowledge--not that i think this was the case here. DGG (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DGG: I am well aware of WP:OWN, and in no way do I feel that way. I am neither the creator nor advocate of these type of articles. But I do maintain that because so many people with a specialized knowledge of these matters have gone to the trouble of putting them up on Wikipedia over the years, we should not throw them out on technicalities when this area is so notable yet under-studied and yet with time the articles have grown and improved. We have many editors with a fairly good knowledge of Judaic matters and they should be consulted via talk pages and wherever they may be in order to get good discussion going rather than throwing out perfectly good articles on these notable people that are becoming tremenefdous resources. Let's give this some time and it will get better. Let's ask for sources, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. IZAK 03:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to ask IZAK why he pleads for overlooking wikipedia policy and wants us to let all Jewish or Hasidic articles solely because its become a resource and many knowledgeable people from its field have labored on it, but why should we make this only by Hasidic articles isn't Izak's reasoning of begging for leniency applying to all fields of interest? Why is he hasty to jump in to delete Christian articles and when it comes to Jewish stuff he filibusters the pages with arguments that AFD's is not the right process?--יודל 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

foreign language sources The way to use a source in a non-English printed newspaper is to quote the relevant paragraph in translation; or, if there is any doubt about the translation, which is not likely to be the case here, in the original as well. the significance of the whole article can be shown by giving the number of words. DGG (talk) 07:06, 11 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. Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arguido[edit]

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

Portugues translation of the word Suspect and we dont do Portuguese here, SqueakBox 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep (and improve) Johnbibby 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it doesn't appear to be a "translation of the word 'suspect'"; rather, it's a specific legal status in the Portuguese justice system. In fact, the Guardian has an entire article about this, with respect to the Madeleine McCann case, in order to clairify the use to a non-Portuguese audience. --Haemo 02:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per comments by Haemo. It's a lot more profound that just a translation Squeakbox. Fighting for Justice 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this is a clearly notable subject by the references provided and its role in the Portugese legal system. No reason to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is not a translation but an explanation of a formal status that exists in the Portuguese legal system and crucially does not have a clear equivalent in most (or all?) legal systems in the English speaking world. Note the following media stories that are all explaining the status for a non Portuguese audience: [15] [16] [17] [18] It is quite common in English to use the native language word to describe something that either does not have a direct English language equivalent or to specifically describe a particular variant, e.g. kaiser. Timrollpickering 02:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you give me one other example of where this occurs on wikipedia? Otherwise it'll set a precedent and not a good one but give me some other examples and I'll reconsider, SqueakBox 02:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lorem ipsum (a particular variant of placeholder text) and several entries in Category:Legal terms, including Fuero, En ventre sa mere, and Dépeçage among others. I could go on. For quite a while. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid term in the Portuguese legal system. Passes WP:RS and WP:V too. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 03:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid and unique term distinguished in several crucial ways from suspect. The closest descriptive equivalent might be person of interest, but that term describes people with no distinct rights (quite problematically; q.v. Richard Jewell). --Dhartung | Talk 03:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem to believe the article's subject to be worth discussion and more than a translation. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Obviously a distinct term, not a direct translation. -- The_socialist ^talk? 05:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that it's come to everyone's attention through one notorious case doesn't alter the fact that it's obviously a notable concept, rather than simply a word, in its own right. Nick mallory 06:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - a valid legal term, and it can be verified by reliable sources. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I was following the Madeleine McCann case on television and on British news websites, and actually came to Wikipedia and typed in the word "arguido" to the search box to look it up. Also, if it were simply the Portuguese for "suspect", the British journalists in their English-language news reports would not keep using the word: they'd simply say "suspect". The point is that "arguido" has a special meaning; the person named as "arguido" has special rights (to have a lawyer present, and to remain silent) and can be asked more probing questions because of being named as an "arguido". That is why the English-language reports on the case keep using the Portuguese word — because it carries a meaning that is not fully conveyed by the English word "suspect". There's definitely scope for an encyclopaedic article (rather than simply a dictionary definition) here. ElinorD (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable legal term of art. — mholland (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced and clearly notable, seems clear it's a legal status and not just the translation of a noun. EvilRedEye 15:58, 8 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. Carioca 01:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Mokhtar[edit]

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

Asserts notability as New Zealand's leading chiropractor but absolutely no citations, references, sources etc. Speedy was declined. Doesn't meet WP:BIO (not even if bent over backwards!) WebHamster 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or strong delete. I could find zilch information about this person. No basis for the claim of notability. gidonb 02:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Judging by the creator's other edits, this could also be a hoax. gidonb 02:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Unreferenced, unverifiable claim to notability, not exactly neutral either. I can't find a darn thing on the guy either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- gadfium 04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless claims are sourced.-gadfium 04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very, very weak assertion of notability. (Top 100, top 500, top 1m?) Completely unsourced and unverifiable. --Evb-wiki 14:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 17 Ghits for the name, no chiropracter. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Hamster, please do bend over backwards. Chances are you're going to hurt yourself. Then you can go see the guy and tell us whether he's actually good... ;) 1redrun ^Talk 09:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Doesn't even claim to be the best: "one of New Zealand's top chiropractors." DGG (talk) 17:16, 11 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 Meets criteria for speedy deletion under criterion A3. This does not preclude its recreation if the article can be expanded beyond a rephrasing of the title.. Navou ^banter 06:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry[edit]

Arsenal F.C. and Manchester United football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic for article. Information in this article can be put into the articles on the teams mentioned themselves. Captain panda 01:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The word "non-notable" is very wrong - definity wrong. The rivalry between two teams was a legend. For example, 21 players in the ground fought each other in a match. I think all of you should know the news. The news could not be put in the article, because it making too long. However, the article is in starting-rate, so your request should be a vandalism. Raymond Giggs 01:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A1 The subject may be notable (I won't argue that - to clarify, I believe it is notable), but can be included in both articles already existing on the teams. As the article currently exists, it provides absolutely no information and would require a tremendous expansion to merit inclusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still doing it - in no time. This is why I made a request of development in the project. Have to wait then. Raymond Giggs 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"R. Giggs"? Interesting coincidence... Grutness...wha? 02:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CSD#A3 as rephrasing of title would probably be more appropriate. KTC 06:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As presently constructed, Merge with team pages. If expanded to be like to anything like this or this, Keep.Patken4 02:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can tell this article's going to be a mess if it gets any longer. That aside, as stated above, a mention in each club's article suffices. - Dudesleeper · Talk 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Patken - Keep if expanded into something reasonable, which IMO is quite likely to be possible, given the two other pages cited - and yes, it's a very notable rivalry. If there's no sign that is can or will happen, then merge to the pages on ~~the Mighty Gunners and the Scum~~ the two clubs. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these things come and go due to various factors. There's no reason to create an article about a so-called "rivalry" between two teams in a 20-team league, other than local derbies. Also, this article has no real content (speediable?), would be a complete POV-magnet, and would at the very least need to be renamed to either make both clubs names' "F.C." or neither. - fchd 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, content is merely rephrasing of title -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:41, 8 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 Gnan garra 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this AFD was overturned at DRV, because the article changed too much for most of the opinions to still be valid. The article could be AFD'ed again immediately if desired. GRBerry 02:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation opener[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a How-to or a dictionary. There is also the possibility of masked advertising with a company's name used prominently in the article for no apparent reason. Author removed prod WebHamster 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOWTO with some WP:SPAM added. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above comments, not the most notable thing either. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think it's quite notable, considering that the average person uses several of these a day. Captain Zyrain 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ per above. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 02:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOWTO -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Slightly smells of an advertisement, since the second sentence mentions the same company listed in the first external links, as well as all the reasons described above. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a hoe-to guide nor is it to be used for advertising. --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HOWTO definitely applies. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a nice author like you doing in a place like this? This is something that should have been written by someone who had more to say after the first sentence. Mandsford 12:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to conversation, does not deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 12:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT#HOWTO Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was not intended as advertisement; I was just in a hurry and picked a few links to use. It's kind of a hard line to tread sometimes – links have to be included in order for it not to count as original research, but their inclusion can make it seem like spam. Captain Zyrain 18:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with pick-up line. This may be the more appropriate title to redirect to, as the more generic term. If you disagree, merge to conversation, but its an encyclopedic topic. 74.92.148.250 19:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the reverse – a pickup line is a type of conversation opener. Captain Zyrain 19:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that like a letter opener but slower and needs a stamp? --WebHamster 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. All right, if you are going to list this as AfD, then I am going to list cover letter, because both articles, while they are about subjects important in our society and of likely interest to readers, are/were also written in a "how-to"-like tone. Captain Zyrain 19:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As is your right as an editor, but it should be said that there is likely to be less accusations of a bad faith nomination had you done it before this article came to AfD. Your credibility as a nominator would be higher too. Just an FYI. As it happens you are probably right, it should be binned, just not in a fit of pique. --WebHamster 20:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request - A few days extension of the AfD due to the belated rewrite. Captain Zyrain 20:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOUD SUPPORT FOR REQUEST. --Kizor 23:48, 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 Snowball delete. Maxim_(talk) 13:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward vs Lazlo[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, and no references to suggest otherwise Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. See also here. Regards, High on a tree 01:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per above. Yngvarr 01:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keb25 01:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:CRYSTAL violation. Pure speculation -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's an upcoming episode, how are they getting any quotes from it? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:18, 8 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 Can't sleep, clown will eat me. Non-admin closure. Deor 02:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Cleverly[edit]

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

Notability yet to come, speedy deletion tag removed, ghits show some prominence. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, for that matter, warn the IP who keeps removing the speedy/AfD templates, and if that continues, please block them.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WTF? Has Wikipedia suddenly become a milk carton now? --WebHamster 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks, I feel like rewarding you with a barn star for that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - LOL thank you. I've tagged it for CSD, it will be apparent to any admin that it needs speedy. Hopefully the anon IP will be out looking for her whilst the administrator has a look :) --WebHamster 01:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. If anyone wants to write a sourced article, that's fine. If this keeps getting recreated as unsourced, salt.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:02, 8 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 achievable with this AfD as there is an assertion that the nomination is in bad faith and making a point, the behaviour of the nominator during this afd tends emphasise this conclusion. That behaviour doesnt then permit others with a differing view to act in the same fashion.
Wikipedia shouldnt be defining cirteria, inclusion in the list should be based solely on a third party reliable source that defines the performer as big busted providing that has occured it doesnt matter whether the person is 34DD or 12A. Gnan garra 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of big-bust models and performers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (3rd nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (4th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (6th nomination)

Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers 2nd

List of big-bust models and performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The inclusion criteria for this list is too subjective. Deciding which models and performers belong on the list has led to disagreements and edit-warring. Epbr123 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a Big Bust genre, and yes, it's easy to determine if a model/performer's career is based on that genre. I've monitored this list for months and the only edit-warring as to inclusion on this list has come recently, and from the nominator. Attempts were made to assume that his mass-removals were in good faith, but it now appear to have been to make a WP:POINT. Dekkappai 00:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dekkappai has stated himself at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers that the inclusion criteria is subjective. Epbr123 00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated, in attempting to work with you, that it appeared subjective and that it needed to be worked out. Serves me right, assuming good faith when where is none. Dekkappai 00:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, these musings were made today, when you were pretending to be willing work on the article. Our discussion is over. Dekkappai 00:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, how big is "big bust" anyway? Far too subjective, and bordering on WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 00:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "How big is big" has nothing to do with it. There are videos, films, magazines, etc. that deal with the Big Bust genre. A performer or model either appears in them, or she doesn't. How funny does a comedian have to be to be called a comedian? Dekkappai 00:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is a big-bust film defined? How many big-bust films does an actress have to appear in to be considered a big-bust genre actress? Epbr123 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are bad faith, leading questions, as they were only beginning to be discussed at the article, after you instigated the edit-war. No comment. Dekkappai 00:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can stripping count as big-bust entertainment? What is the difference between a big-bust genre stripper and a stripper with a big bust? Epbr123 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These questions do NOT merit deletion. Bring it up on the talk page. The fact that you were in the middle of heated discussions and/or edit wars on exactly this point make it absolutely clear that this AfD nomination was made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 08:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, recommend immediate bad-faith nomination closure - This is a clear WP:POINT nomination - User:Epbr123 and User:Dekkappai are the participants in the edit war Epbr123 is using as justification to delete this. One cannot both start an edit war and then nominate to delete based on there being an edit war. This is a clear classic POINT violation and the AFD should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert 00:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a POINT comment based on a disagreement between Georgewilliamherbert and myself on another AfD. Epbr123 00:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am reviewing all your AFD activity out of concern for your recent actions, but the issue here is very specifically that you have both started the edit war and are POINTily using it as an AFD excuse. This is a clear Wikipedia policy violation. Admin rules keep me from either closing this AFD myself or taking administrative action against you for the POINT violation here, as we are engaged in the other dispute, but these are unrelated issues and problems. Anyone looking at the article talk page and history will clearly see your numerous edits, which prove that this nomination is POINT. I am amazed that you didn't think it would apply to you here. Georgewilliamherbert 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my defense (not that it matters) I have not participated in the edit war, and made efforts to prevent it by talking it out. Dekkappai 00:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No argument to keep it except WP:ILIKEIT. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 02:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to bad faith nomination - this nomination was made in response to an edit war. It should not be deleted as a result of this bad faith nomination, regardless of whether or not it qualifies for deletion. If there was a discussion going already about this, it should have been resolved at the article. Storming off to get the article deleted is not an appropriate response to a disagreement. --Cheeser1 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who are we to decide what's a "big-bust"? This is WP:OR Corpx 05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with User:Cheeser1 and, I have to say, User:Dekkappai. It is very difficult to assume good faith here; the nominator has engaged in multiple attempts to strip down the article to uselessness, got involved with at least two edit wars in this very article, and has been on a rampage of AfDs regarding the subjects of this and similar articles. If the article needs improving, then let's improve it. A deletion request -- the fifth one -- is wholly unnecessary here and smacks of him not getting his way, and thus wants to tear the whole thing down. See the history and talk pages of this article for more information. Color me not at all surprised with this development. Xihr 07:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the hope of avoiding an AfD, I attempted to clean up the article and make the inclusion criteria more objective. However, the ensuing edit wars and unresolvable differences over what constitutes big-bust entertainment meant that an AfD was necessary. Even my removal of obviously non big-bust entertainment models, such as Keyshia Cole, were reverted. I then attempted to work with the more reasonable editors of this article here to establish more objective criteria. However, even if there was agreement on this, this decision itself would have been subjective, eg. what proportion of a porn stars films should be big-bust films for her to be considered a big-bust pornstar? All her films? Half her films? A dozen films? One film? After the discussions on the talk page reached a dead end, it was clear to me that it is impossible to make this list objective. Epbr123 09:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You removed the obviously wrong entries as part of a mass deletion, removing many other non-obviously wrong entries, and they were reverted for the obvious reason that such mass deletions were not justified. Pointing to the legitimate deletions -- what, two? -- in response to all of this is a smokescreen (those deletions were quickly sustained). When attempts were made to ask you what you were up to, no justifications were given. This repeated with no answers ever forthcoming, only more leading, unending questions for those who were trying to keep the article from being defaced. The end result was this nomination for AfD, which is hard to see how is anything other than in bad faith. This is all readily visible in the history for the article and the talk page. Xihr 10:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you see this as a bad faith nomination, but even if it were, that shouldn't affect the outcome. Epbr123 11:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it? Disruptive, spiteful, or otherwise bad-faith AfDs are completely inappropriate and should be summarily closed (without deletion) on those grounds. --Cheeser1 11:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you and others were unable to work towards a definitive answer on exactly how the list is defined is not reason for you to storm off and get the article deleted. Working towards resolution of these issues may take time, often lots of time. Deleting the article in the meanwhile is not appropriate. --Cheeser1 10:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to bad faith nomination I agree with User:Cheeser1 entirely.Darkcraft 12:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quite a few WP:AGF violations are occuring here. This is all my fault for trying to improve the article first. I should have AfDed it straight away. Epbr123 12:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions make it virtually impossible to assume good faith. You entered an discussion, the discussion turned bad, and rather than work towards consensus, you AfD'd the article because you couldn't have it your way. And this is one of two separate abuses of the AfD process this week. WP:AGF tells us that we should assume good faith, not that we should blindly assume good faith. Your actions speak for themselves. You've also made an interesting point by assuming that we have not assumed good faith (see WP:AAGF). We're here to contribute (positively and non-disruptively) to Wikipedia. You have used the AfD process disruptively, twice this week. We're trying to fix it, and the first step is to identify the problem: bad-faith AfD nominations. You seem to think that we're assuming bad faith at random or out of spite, when in fact we are drawing the only conclusion we can, given your disruptive misuse of the AfD process to make points. --Cheeser1 12:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What points? Epbr123 12:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't like Usenet. That you don't want to cooperate in the discussion process at Talk:List of big-bust models and performers. You're disrupting Wikipedia because you didn't get your way. List of big-bust models and performers isn't exactly how you want it? Better delete it. Your point is, as far as I can tell, "if you won't do things my way, I'll just declare it 'subjective' and get it deleted, rather than continue participating in a good faith discussion of the issue." Of course, how am I supposed to know what point you're trying to make? This is the least effective and most disruptive way to do so. And let's not mention the personal attacks. --Cheeser1 12:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I dislike Usenet? I'm not going to respond to you anymore. This discussion should be about the article not the nominator. Epbr123 12:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was nominated in bad-faith, that's a perfectly relevant point (notice that I'm not the only one saying so). But feel free to storm off and refuse to respond to me. It's not like a bad-faith nominator would contribute a whole lot to an AfD, so i wouldn't mind having fewer comments from you to read. GWH has already explained things, including how you have been disruptive and how you are making a WP:POINT, thoroughly (see above). --Cheeser1 12:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are the exact same type of never-ending, leading questions we've had to deal with on the talk page by the way. Xihr 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Rypcord. 13:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • LBNcontribs)

You need a valid reason. Epbr123 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never had to before in other AF'ds, but ok: Its a noteworthy list with information for people who would like to access it. The Rypcord. 13:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an unencyclopedic list as it's to difficult to judge who counts as a big-bust model or performer. Epbr123 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the list cite its requirements? If so, then its quite easy to judge who counts. -Do they meet requirements? Yes, add them. No? Don't add them. Simple. The Rypcord. 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)
For example, should Stacy Valentine be included? If not, why not? If so, why? Epbr123 13:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Her bio states she has a 34DD bust. Thus meeting the requirements of the article, thus she should be included, like she currently is. I fail to see your point. I also fail to see why you're being so aggressive against this article. The Rypcord. 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is someone with a D bust not a big-bust performer? Epbr123 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to my questions first. The Rypcord. 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)

Epbr, your line of questioning is irrelevant and pedantic. This is not the place to consider specific instances of who is or is not included on this list. Such minutia have nothing to do with this AfD, and is distracting us from constructive discussion of this issue (unless of course, you're only trying to prove an unrelated WP:POINT). --Cheeser1 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close bad faith nomination. I cannot, in good conscience, support this AFD, regardless of my beliefs regarding the article's clear and present original research violations as painfully indicated by the lack of definitive criteria. We are not here to decide what a "big bust" is, but we are to report what the "big bust" genre niche is. There is a difference. This article, as it presently stands, is wholly worthy of deletion. (To be honest, there have been better articles with more substance that have been expunged.) Having said this, I cannot vote to delete the article as it stands presently because this is a bad-faith nomination on the nominee's part, and no process on Wikipedia should be about placing the contributor before the contribution.) -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I should note that this page should really be titled "7th nomination", and not "5th". -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 15:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Isn't this really the sixth? (I see a duplicate second.) Xihr 22:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a bad faith nomination is where a nomination is made despite the nominator knowing the article is valid. On the other hand, you want the article kept despite knowing it should be deleted. Epbr123 15:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's more than one way a nomination can be made in bad faith. --Cheeser1 16:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epbr123, It's not what you're trying to do that's the issue here, it's how you're going about doing it. To be honest, I still have some hope that the article can be made into something that has both a neutral point of view and does not contain original research from Wikipedia's editors. I'm more for reworking the article than for deleting it, provided that it meets the notability criteria, in which this article does. Since "big-bust" is a large niche (no pun intended) of pornography and, indeed, the very crux of breast fetishism in general, it is important that the list of big-bust models and performers remain here. What should have been done, instead of throwing this at articles for deletion for the 7th (not 5th) time, is brought this to the attention of the porn project and tried to get people from there to chime in. Many of them are very level headed and should have been given the opportunity to address these issues. However, instead, contributors weren't. So the means you've employed do not justify the end result, which is why, in good conscience, I "voted" that the seventh nomination be dismissed. I should also note that the fact that this article has survived repeated nominations does lend to the need of such an article, as there is interest in the subject at hand. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've had three years to sort this article out, and six previous warnings that the article is close to deletion. I too would like this article to become a legitimate list, but it's never going to happen. Epbr123 17:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, on the other hand, seem to have first edited this article just four days (not three years!) ago, and then you did it with a mass deletion of names without even mentioning the prospect first in the article's talk page. Thereby sparking an edit war, and much ire against you, and a discussion of criteria which you did not seem interested in settling (would have been difficult even if you had, what with all of that ire). Instead you merely challenged every criteria and example offered (while continuing to revert any attempts to restore the entries you'd removed). Soon you unilaterally concluded that "it must always be subjective, therefore the page has to go," after having effectively sabotaged the discussion that might have reached an objective set of criteria. I see no good faith effort here. Anyway, it seems to me that the article was quite adequately "sorted out" before you got there. Jeh 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adequately sorted out? Half the people on the list had never even been in a big-bust movie or mag; it was obvious they should have been removed. Epbr123 18:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... so there IS an objective criteria you were applying! Jeh 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were still far too many borderline cases. Epbr123 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that is true, but we still don't know what objective criteria you were applying. But wait a minute. If you had objective criteria for your deletions there should have been no "borderline" cases; a performer would be on one side of the line or the other. If you were using subjective criteria, then pot, meet kettle. Jeh 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was using objective criteria at the time, but the subsequest reversal of my removal proved me wrong. Epbr123 21:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that your set of objective criteria did not meet everyone's expectations is reason for you to WORK TO FORM CONSENSUS WITH OTHERS. Not AfD the article. --Cheeser1 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good faith or not, I really do not know. But I do know that Wikipedia is NOT a repository for indiscriminate information (or some such). And this looks just like such indiscriminate trivia to me. Marcus22 15:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. 5th Nomination? Clearly someone has an agenda here to delete this page, and may be that person should know when to stop. I have no problem with a list of big bust models and performers....if they didn't exist, and there wasn't an interest in them, there we would not need a page. Clearly there is an interest in these performers, so the page is deserved. Deathlibrarian 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no objective definition of a big-bust model or performer. Epbr123 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Possibly works better as a category, but it's an interesting list...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category as well: Category:Big-bust models and performers. Epbr123 16:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Like it or not, the porn industry is a significant part of the U.S. economy and the big-bust category is a significant and, dare I say, obvious part of it. Perhaps the page needs to be renamed and refactored to be a description of the sub-genre, with the list as merely a part. Inclusion on the list can be determined by the performer's movies being listed in this category in catalogs, etc. Jeh 16:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if a performer has made 300 movies and only one of them is included in the big-bust category? Would that be enough for them to be classed as a big-bust performer? Decisions like that make the article too subjective. There are many examples of these performers here. Epbr123 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So in one sentence you propose a completely objective criterion, and in the next you say that criterion would be "too subjective"? Seems excessively argumentative. Jeh 17:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the reasons I stopped working on the article and nominated it. It was possible to create a subjective criteria (ie. an appearance in one big-bust film), but I later realised that the decision on what the criteria should be was itself subjective, ie. why one film and not two? Epbr123 17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you pursue that line of "reasoning" you'll find that a great many things turn out to be "subjective" after enough iterations. There's a big difference between a criterion, and the criteria for accepting a criterion. That the former is subjective does not mean the latter is. Jeh 17:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one here who thinks the criteria are objective. Epbr123 19:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not addressing that point at all. You (according to your posts in the talk page) started the AfD because you decided that any criteria must be subjective, on the grounds that the decision to accept a given set of criteria would be subjective. That's not a valid conclusion. Jeh 19:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly a reason to delete. If we make up our own criteria for what constitutes a big-bust porn star, this article is original research. Epbr123 19:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has made up its own -- or made the subjective decision to adopt well-known -- criteria for many things, such as notability and reliable sources. How is this different? Jeh 19:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of notability and reliable source guidelines are to prevent original research. Their existence can't be used as an excuse to allow original research. Epbr123 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing to use criteria that are (for example) already used in the porn industry is not "original research." If a performer works in or is advertised in a "big bust" context the decision is clear and not at all OR. Jeh 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, what if only 1% of a performers movies are big-bust movies? Does this make them a big-bust performer? Epbr123 20:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out to you before, this is not the place to discuss exact criteria or marginal cases. If you were genuinely interested in that discussion, I think you should have pursued it on the article's talk page, not aborted the discussion with an AfD. However, I'd say yes. It's easy to throw rocks at a "more than 10%" or "more than 10 films" or whatever number as "subjective," and perhaps it is, but "1 or more" (not 1% or more, ONE or more) seems to me to be very objective. Jeh 20:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the place to discuss the criteria and about half the people on the list are marginal. The article's lead says the list is for people who are known for performing in big-bust adult entertainment. Does one movie really make some known for being a big-bust performer? Epbr123 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the talk page is the place to discuss the criteria. But this particular point can be addressed by changing the text to "people who have performed in...", or perhaps "people have been featured in..." As I said previously, somewhere, I actually think the article should be changed to describing the genre, and include the list as part of a larger article. Jeh 20:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MOS would prohibit the combination of a long list and a main article. There's already an article on breast fetishism. Epbr123 22:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that all of this should have been discussed on the article's talk page before it was nominated for deletion. The fact that this conversation is not happening there has to do with the fact that Epbr refuses to acknowledge the deletion process. He should have worked with other editors instead of AfD'ing it because he was impatient and unwilling to work towards compromise or accept a less-than-perfect set of criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia is not perfect, and never will be, let's try to move on from there). --Cheeser1 10:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion does not warrant wholesale deletion of the page. --FranchisePlayer 19:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criterion shows that this article is nothing more than original research. Epbr123 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. The fact that there is dispute over the inclusion criteria show that it should be discussed more on the talk page. Not summarily put up for AfD. Much of Wikipedia runs on "consensus" -- what is "consensus" if not a mutual agreement on a subjective decision? After all if there were objective facts to begin with consensus would occur automatically (at least among all those who knew the facts). Jeh 19:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a list has subjective inclusion criteria, it is original research and therefore unencyclopedic. Epbr123 20:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes... you've said this half a dozen times now, at least. So let's fix the criteria (and not give up after four days). Jeh 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR does not say "if an article contains any original research, it must be immediately AfD'd," does it? No. It says to fix the article. You tried, and when the discussion after a couple days wasn't suiting you, you AfD'd the thing. That's not how it goes. WP:OR isn't carte blanche to delete anything you think is OR. --Cheeser1 08:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rome wasn't built in a day - and neither were many of these women. The Rypcord. 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rypcord (talk • contribs)

I love how Epbr123 has changed the requirements to be included from just being a DD+ model/performer; which the article states; to that of someone having performed or modeled for big-bust movies/magazines/etc. The Rypcord. 21:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete again. Definition of "big" is still arbitrary, most of these have zero truly credible sources anyway, and this article is canonical breastcruft - we are not Boobpedia, and simply having silicon injected does not actually make anyone worthy of anything. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The fact that it includes the fake-breasted Daphne Rosen and similar others but doesn't include beautiful chicks like Aneta Buena, Alicia Loren, Sara Stone, Bea Flora etc is criminal in my book, but we don't decide what our sources choose to make notable...-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and User:TenPoundHammer. It appears that the Keep !votes virtually all are procedural ones, and don't discuss the validity of the actual article itself. - fchd 07:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correction as I count it, there are 7 votes to keep based on reasons related to the article, 3 related to this nomination being clearly in bad faith (which is valid), and 1 request for summary closure (for the same bad-faith related reason). --Cheeser1 07:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can only see nine keep !votes at all - 4 based on the validity of the article Dekkappai, Rypcord, Deathlibrarian and Jeh, 3 based on procedural reasons, Cheeser1 (yours!), Xihr and Darkcraft. and 2 based on other reasoning, hisspaceresearch and Franchiseplayer. I take back the "virtuall all" part of my statement, but it still remains a fairly high proportion.
The difference between 3/10 and 3/9 is 1/30. The difference in our count is irrelevant - at least two thirds of the "keeps" are not procedural, and while 1/3 may seem like a "high proportion" you have to realize that this user AfD'd the article because consensus wasn't going his way. That's a gross violation of policy and this nomination was made in seriously bad faith. I would expect it to come up in this AfD, and it is a valid reason to either "keep" the article or summarily close the AfD (ie keep). --Cheeser1 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The !votes so far are 6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research. Epbr123 09:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making inflammatory comments. Characterizing votes as "keep despite it being original reserach"? How about we call your vote "delete despite the fact that it's obviously enecylopedic" or "delete because I'm too hard-headed to cooperate with others"??? Would that be fair or civil? NO. Stop being argumentative and deliberately insulting. It's out of line, and this is one of many places you've stepped over the line in the past week. Regardless of your editorial activities, I'm tired of asking you to follow policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and so forth. --Cheeser1 10:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing how directing people to WP:POINT has become such a common term of abuse, without anyone really understanding what it means. Epbr123 10:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find it amusing how often you falsely accuse people of being abusive just because they disagree with you or cite policies and procedures that you don't feel like following. --Cheeser1 13:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"6 delete, 3 keep per procedural reasons, and 6 keep despite it being original research" Hahahahahaha. That reminds me of Stephen Colbert, who says that their are two kinds of politicians in the U.S....Republicans and "cowards"! By the way, y'all realize that AfD is not a vote, right? Because, if it were, then either side could sockpuppet themselves into victory, right? --71.191.166.249 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By some metrics, this is the fifth most popular article on all of Wikipedia. I'm not sure how much of this is about how indefinable the criteria is, as opposed to just not wanting to deal with it.--BigCow 09:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, some people here may just want to keep the article based on the popularity of the subject rather than its merits as an encyclopedia entry. Epbr123 09:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and WP:NOT#DIR. Ceoil 10:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as bad faith nomination and make sure every single angry mastodon here gets a lesson in not being a dick, especially the nominator, who looks to me like he's just arguing for the sake of arguing. Good God, this has got to be the longest AfD I've seen in which nothing has been said!! --71.191.166.249 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that contribution. Epbr123 13:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. --71.191.166.249 14:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No-one has yet denied the article is original research. Epbr123 14:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it does? That's a reason to fix it, not to delete it. See, nominating an article for deletion just because it has fixable problems would be like me suggesting that you be banned because of this farce of an AfD nomination that you've created here. --71.191.166.249 14:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the herd. It's not merely a problem of it containing small sections of OR. The whole thing is OR. As shown by the examples I have already given, deciding who is a big-bust star is very subjective. Epbr123 14:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Regarding bad faith etc. then I think we should ignore it and argue the case on its own merit. Epbr is of course allowed his viewpoint that the article should be deleted instead of being mended as he initially tried. Problem regarding who to include is not grounds for deletion, but for discussion - although this discussion could conceivably end with us having no way to establish who to include or not without using original research almost all the time. Personally, I think the problem can be solved, and although I do not find much interesting encyclopedic knowledge in the article, I don't see the harm in it either. Lundse 15:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your honest, well thought through opinion. Epbr123 15:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nomination was made in bad faith. It's a genre in porn like action is in film 81.153.49.180 15:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good lord, how many times does an article need to be nominated? As always, if there's an issue regarding citing, etc. that's a content issue to be handled within the article. The idea of the article is sound and it's worth noting the lack of redlinks, and given the anti-adult entertainment bias on Wikipedia which sees most porn articles go to AFD within days of creation (if not hours), that means most of those included have probably already passed the acid test, making them notable enough to have articles. There's even a length introductory section giving the list context, which is something most list articles lack. If accusations of bad faith are true, then this nomination should be closed. 23skidoo 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with citing! Please read the discussion. Epbr123 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as bad faith nomination as stated by Joe Beaudoin. Tabercil 16:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith comment. Epbr123 16:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that people noticed that your nomination was in bad faith is not itself bad faith. Stop making inflammator nonsense responses every time someone disagrees with you. It is completely uncivil and violates WP:AGF. There is clear evidence that this nomination was in bad faith. Some editors have chosen to believe this evidence. That does not make this a "bad faith comment." --Cheeser1 17:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad faith comment as there is no evidence for this being a bad faith nomination. He's just joining in with the rest of the sheep. Epbr123 20:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Please ignore these bizarre bad faith claims. I have no idea what they refer to and they seem to be being used as a way to keep the article despite it being original research. Epbr123 17:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thats just pathetic. The Rypcord. 18:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "bizarre claims" stem from the fact that when discussion on the article's talk page stopped going your way, you stormed of and AfD'd the thing. This is not the first time you've done it, and there are a number of people who independently concluded that this and 11 other AfD's you started on the same day were all made in bad-faith. --Cheeser1 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At which point of the discussion did things stop going my way? Epbr123 00:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's another example of how difficult it will be to make this subjective. Jezebelle Bond has B size breasts but one of her movies has boobs in the title, Boobs Of Hazzard 2. Does this make her a big-bust performer? And I didn't ask this question in bad-faith, whatever the hell that means. Epbr123 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to see the point. The article states any model or performer with a bust of DD+. It has no requirement of movie credits, films, books, magazines, pornos, etc. "Does Person A have a bust of DD+?" If yes, include them, if no, don't include them. Its that simple. The article itself states the requirements for inclusion. Whats so subjective about that?The Rypcord. 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the criteria but if it was, a list of models and performers with DD breasts would be even more deserving of deletion. Epbr123 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is red-herring nonsense, meant to distract from the issue at hand. The subjectivity of the list is something to be resolved by discussing it on the list's talk page, not here. The fact that the list might be subjective is something that needs to be fixed. Find me a policy that says "if an article is ever subjective, in any way, it must be deleted, not fixed." Hint: you won't find one. --Cheeser1 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the article will always be subjective. I was hoping for this AfD to be a discussion on whether that was indeed true; instead it's descended into this "bad-faith" crap. Epbr123 19:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page. If you were trying to make a point about the subjective nature of the criteria, you should have done it on your own, on the article's talk page. Not here, disruptively. In fact, such a discussion was going on. When people disagreed with you, you decided to AfD the article. That's 100% bad faith. --Cheeser1 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs here because if it is subjective, it should be deleted. It's driving me mad having to repeat myself over-and-over. Yes, I am making a point: it should be deleted. No-one disagreed with my criteria proposed on the talk page, except myself. Epbr123 19:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can I propose the compromise that the discussion of subjectivity is relevant for whether this should be deleted if the question is whether the article will ever be objective/NPOV? If we were never able to make a good, sourced claim within the list, then it should get deleted. But just that it is difficult and in some cases impossible, does not mean it should get deleted? If we can agree on this, we can move on to discuss whether such objective crieria are possible (something which should probably have started on the talk page, but which is also relevant regarding deletion). PS: I believe it is possible, but do not see the article as holding much promise for ever becoming good reading (hence, "weak keep"). PPS: regarding bad faith on when what was done, then it would be great if we could "wipe the slate". But if there is enough cause not to, so be it (I won't judge on this, I did not follow this from the start). Lundse 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion because the discussion on the talk page, regarding the inclusion criteria, convinced me that the article will never be objective. The broad criteria, which there is consensus on, is that each person on the list has to be marketed as a big-bust genre models or performer. Determining what counts as that marketing is what leads to the subjectivity. There is agreement that a performer who appears in big-bust genre porn movies is marketed as a big-bust performer. This is a good objective criteria when a performer only appears in big-bust movies. However, when only a very small proportion of a performer's movies are in the big-bust genre, it is unclear whether this counts as being marketed as a big-bust star. Similar subjectiveness is involved when judging whether porn magazine models, Page 3 girls, strippers and actresses in non-porn big-bust movies are marketed as big-bust entertainers. Epbr123 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion on a similar topic may help give you more background info on the debate. Since that discussion, I've realised the criteria suggested by User:AnonEMouse are too subjective for the above reasons. Epbr123 23:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, not surprisingly, a bogus argument, and seems to be a smokescreen. Subjectivity is involved in everything -- all of Wikipedia's guidelines as to appropriateness of content (WP:N, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc.) have subjective elements to them. Is a company notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article? What does its net worth need to be to qualify? $100M? $1B? The choice is arbitrary, and different people will disagree on where the line should be drawn. By your reasoning, all articles on companies should be deleted because the dividing line is subjective, which clearly indicates that the argument is ridiculous. The mere subjectivity of some criteria is not a reason to delete an article; it is a reason to discuss the criteria and work out the borderline cases. You've never made any attempt to do this, and have just been disruptive. (Now you're being disruptive again by adding a bunch of bogus entries.) Xihr 22:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are ample reliable sources available to justify the inclusion of this list. RFerreira 19:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's the criteria you're proposing? Each model on the list has to have a reliable source which specifically states the model is in the big-bust genre? Very few people on the list will have such a source. Epbr123 20:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to badger everyone who replies KEEP. No one badgers those who put DELETE. The Rypcord. 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was obvious by your latest attempt to edit the article EPBR123... you cannot change what the requirements are for inclusion. It seems THAT is what you are truly mad about. You are mad because the list includes all models of DD+, not just ones who are in the big-bust genre like you would like. All anyone needs to do is check the history of the page and see your latest attempts at changing the page to see your true motivations for this deletion or changes to the article. The Rypcord. 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a very popular (read notable) genre and the list is verifiable by reliable sources. --Oakshade 23:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained many times here why it is not as simple as that. Please read my comments. Epbr123 23:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should he read your comments? All they are - are inflammatory, badgering, rude, and monotonous. They are repetitive pieces of liberal garbage in which all it is - is you constantly passing off your comments as truths when they are not. We (by this, I mean the 20+ people) have seen through you and have noticed WHY you Af'd this and many other articles. You are truly pathetic. The Rypcord. 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal garbage? I don't get what's so liberal about it. --71.191.166.249 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete trivial open ended list that belongs as a category. The only reason to use a list here would be to shove a bunch of fair use photos into 1 article which is against policy. Besides this is Wikipedia not Boobpedia, and certainly not Pornopedia. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Epbr123 can reply to each KEEP I'll reply to each DELETE. #:There is no pictures on this page (have you viewed the page?). The Rypcord. 00:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Temper, temper. This AfD is a farce, as I've stated earlier, but don't you become an angry mastodon, too. --71.191.166.249 01:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rypcord... Please avoid from following the example Epbr123 has, regrettably, set in this AfD. I strongly suggest that it is better to take the higher ground in this case, as the facts will attend to themselves. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP. EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG KEEP. CBenoit128 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe its time to end this discussion. The Rypcord. 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any discussions on this thread. What a mess. Epbr123 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then it should be closed. The Rypcord. 17:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's not up to us, though. Epbr123 18:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It's as notable as many of the other topics that are explored at great length and in great detail on Wikipedia, if not moreso. (Pokèmon, anyone?) I agree with Joe in that this article needs a lot of reworking, but it's certainly one that will be worth having once it's been improved. I also agree that this nomination for deletion was made in bad faith. In addition, I have been greatly amused watching Epbr drive himself into a frenzy while trying to derail every comment. You made your points, dude. Let it go; The only place you're getting with all this fury is an early grave. --Slander 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep - fix the OR, fix the inclusion criteria, these are not reasons to delete. I havn't really seen any reason to delete. --Rocksanddirt 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasons for nomination appear to be content related; this is one of the most visible pages, period, that Wikipedia has to offer. I disagree that the criteria are too subjective, and alas almost ALL of our guidelines for inclusion are subjective but that surely isn't a valid reason to delete a list which the community has demonstrated, time and time again, that they wish to retain. Burntsauce 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person here who has said the criteria aren't too subjective. I trust you've read the thread and not just made your mind up from looking at the article. There are very subtle and complex problems with the article which casual observers will find difficult to notice. Epbr123 23:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not obligated to reply to every single vote. Please consider the fact that just maybe someone can disagree with you without need to be told that they are wrong, especially when you assume that they haven't read the article thoroughly enough. This person has made a perfectly valid point - this is a content dispute, which is not an AfD-qualifying problem. --Cheeser1 01:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not obligated to reply to every single one of my counter-arguments with personal attacks. Epbr123 08:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content dispute is not a reason for deletion. AfD nominations should mention at least one of the deletion criteria. Jackaranga 08:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Content not suitable for an encyclopedia", "Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", and "Overcategorization". Epbr123 08:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I do recognize that these comments on every vote is not the "done thing", then I must say I do understand Epbr's frustration. He is arguing that the content dispute is unsolvable, and that nigh-all possible content is unsourcable. Few people respond to this, but attack the strawnman-Ebpr whom they fit with the argument "The current content dispute means we should delete the article". Even if Epbr has/is claiming this, his stronger argument still stands and it is this we should address. I personally believe that we can find a good compromise on what to include in this list, by basing it directly on a consensus definition of the "big bust"-genre. There are problems, sure, but I do not believe they invalidate the entire article. But this is not a given (although I would say it is the default opinion that sources can be found) and it is the point on which me and Epbr disagree - this does not make him an idiot to be ignored and I would not want anyone closing this AfD to take me serious if I did not address his claims! Lundse 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply/Comment: You have made some very good points here. However, I feel I must point out that this AfD has become about the contributor/nominator and not the article, and as such should be jettisoned. It is a mess, started by Epbr123's bad faith nomination: he edits the article for, essentially, four days -- instigating a possible edit war in the process -- and then unilaterally decides that the article cannot be salvaged and decides to throw it on AfD once he doesn't get "his way" in addressing the issues of the article. Admittedly, while Epbr123 is not the only "guilty" one here, it's hard to stay clean when trying to clean up a mess of this magnitude. (To put it bluntly and with forthright honesty, this is quite possibly one of the most messiest situations I have ever seen on Wikipedia since I began contributing.) Also, I should note that the RfC in process evaluates the actions of not only Epbr123 in this matter, but the actions of the editors involved as well, should it be deemed necessary. Given that there is no such thing as "pure innocence" and "pure guilt", this is to be expected.-- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right about the switch in focus here, of course. On your other points about Epbr's action, I am pleeding "no contest". I am not going to investigate this, nor have I ever tried to - I will let others judge this part. I just pointed out something I have observed on this AfD, which has become quite messy, yes. Lundse 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment I do appreciate your attempt to see good faith in Epbr123's actions and attitude, Lunds. However, because of the number of editors he has angered (I was beginning to think it was only me for a while), I believe it is Epbr123 who has brought this on himself. Even now, after inspiring outrage from many editors, and while in the midst of an RfC, he continues to AfD in the category, even articles such as this one which he AfD'ed and lost a few months ago. (At this time in his career he was AfDing up to a dozen articles a day in the category. Other editors and myself were offering counter-arguments, and generally winning. He has beat us now though, because of the ease with which an AfD can be started, and the time and research required to counter one. So now, by persisting in these mass-AfDs, he gets more and more scalps for his trophy wall.) The points that you bring up, and that Epbr finally brought up, seem to me proof that this whole mess is nothing but a WP:POINT. If he thought the page's criteria were ill-defined, he should have said so and engaged in a discussion. Instead, he unilaterally mass-removed names (and mass-AfD'ed articles in the category), and instigated an edit war. By the time any discussion started, he had angered every regular editor of this article. Still, I never reverted him and attempted to find good faith (which was not openly shown) and engage him in discussion. When it looked like the discussion was not leading to his WP:POINT (namely: There is no big-bust genre, and the article should be deleted), he broke off discussion without comment, and AfD'ed the article. Throughout the AfD discussion, as he does with every AfD discussion, he seems to engage in a sort of POV Socratic dialogue, which may be fine in the classroom but is condescending and seems to imply his ownership of the article/category. My suggestion, in the conversation in which he quickly broke off when it seemed to be going good, was going to be to look at outside sources for a good definition of the genre. Instead he seems to attempt to bait editors into emotional outbursts and defies them to come up with their own definition, which he then knocks down. This may be a good method for appearing to win arguments, but is not the Wikipedia method, and the majority of Wikipedians do not believe it should be. Dekkappai 18:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, those were the days, Dekkappai. I miss your "keep per multiple magazine appearances" arguments. ;) Epbr123 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may very well be 100% right, Dekk. I am not going to pass judgement on this. My comments stand, but they may very well (already ) be proven completely moot by other behaviour and evidence than what I have seen. Lundse 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot ever be sourced as written; needs to be destroyed and restarted from scratch. Valrith 00:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A little history. In reviewing for comment at the nominator's RfC, I came across several instances in which he directly contradicts the assertions under which he started this AfD. For example:

On August 7: In this edit he re-worded the Category:Big-bust models and performers so: "This is a list of women primarily known for modeling or performing in the big-bust genre of erotic entertainment." Probably a good edit, I believe, but one which implies the existence and verifiability of the big-bust genre, which he now claims to be undefinable. However, he then used this edit to immediately begin mass-removal of Category:Big-bust models and performers from hundreds of articles like Candye Kane, and Russ Meyer actress Cynthia Myers.

Also:

On August 9 he opened a succesful deletion review of Sharday with a statement including, she passes criteria 3 as she has been prolific or innovative within the big-bust genre.". Again, in direct contradiction of his statements here.

For what it's worth... Dekkappai 21:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She's obviously a big-bust model, but it's the many borderline cases which make the list subjective. I've never denied the existence of the big-bust genre. Epbr123 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And here's another blast from the past, from "Category talk:Naturally busty porn stars", a category the nominator created, but was deleted, and following which, immediately and mysteriously, he began AfDing articles... for the first time... "I think its reasonable to class a pornstar as busty if they have a bra cup size of DD or more. This criteria would be consistent with the criteria used in the other category, 'big-bust models and performers'." At the deletion argument "you can tell from the titles of the films the actress has appeared in whether or not they are in the big-bust genre. Epbr123 12:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)" Dekkappai 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you checked the dates, you will see my first AfDs weren't made after that deletion. The "DD or more" argument was merely an "others exist" argument; if it was acceptable in one, it should have been acceptable in both. "you can tell from the titles of the films the actress has appeared in whether or not they are in the big-bust genre" - this is true, but as I have already said, what if she's only appeared in one big-bust film? Epbr123 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has this concluded yet? The Rypcord. 17:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until an administrator closes this debate, it's "open." However, the discussion appears to be done, regardless (nobody's commenting much anymore). I guess noadmin has gotten around to closing it yet. --Cheeser1 18:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

99.242.169.7 19:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, to participate in this sort of discussion, one should tell us whether or not one believes we should keep the article or delete it, and the reasoning behind that recommendation. If you'd provide such a contribution, we'd be happy to consider it. Thanks. --Cheeser1 19:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While there may be no bright line identifying "big-bust" performers and models from others, that's a problem best worked out among editors on the Talk page, not through an AfD. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a content dispute. The boundaries of the "big-bust" genre are no more or less defined than any other. What qualifies as Emo (music) is probably one of the most hotly contested issues I have witnessed on Wikipedia, but no one is arguing that the genre exists. Furthermore, as I have said in the past [19] this is one of the most sought after lists on Wikipedia, averaging tens of thousands of page views per month. Future deletion nominations should be discouraged if no new arguments can be presented for removing such a high-profile list. Yamaguchi先生 23:40, 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.
~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page (2nd nomination)~~

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnan garra 09:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Generation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/MTV Generation

Articles for deletion/MTV Generation (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/MTV Generation (3rd nomination)

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

Possibly not notable, needs to be rewritten, low-quality, hoaxish as well. Also may have original research, and cleanup. I speedied in the spirit of A7 and IAR, but User:TigerShark overturned me. However, I feel this article should be deleted, and well, this is the prover venue. Maxim_(talk) 00:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the "official" generations named by Strauss and Howe, who virtually created the idea. There have been a number of original "generation" names with articles, few of them really having sources, but this one will have much more. --Dhartung | Talk 01:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above withdrawn; I was mistaken. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but requries major re-write and purging of original research (BTW, while the nominator's reasons of "needs to be rewritten, low-quality" and "may have original research, and cleanup" properly assess the article, these are not reasons to delete - merely to fix). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drop. To agree with the Strauss and Howe claim above, I'd like proof. Even with said proof, where's other research available confirming this phenomena as a reality of our society? Otherwise, this is very neologistic/original-research laden article. Perhaps in 5-10 years better material will be available for this gap in generations, but I don't see very much convincing evidence right now. (This is not intended as a slight against this generation: I was born in 1980 myself.) Micah 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but do not salt. Currently, this article fails WP:NEO, but I would like to see how this term gets accepted in the future. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a bit of original research, but it does seem to be a good article. I have heard the term 'MTV Generation' used several times before, though I can't think of where. The reasons for nomination were not really appropriate, as ZimZalaBim said. This seems to be quite a useful article, there seems to be no good reason to delete this as I am confident it is notable.Darkcraft 12:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are 361,000+ ghits for "MTV Generation", and even old fogies like me are acquainted with the term. Mandsford 12:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, only 800 UNIQYE Google hits. But I think we still have something if we rewrite and remove OR. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The phrase 'MTV Generation' is just as well known and comparable to phrases such as the Swinging Sixties - they are phrases which capture the zeitgeist. However the article absolutely must be re-written as without in-line citations the article is partly a synthesis and comprises original research. Also, there is absolutely no-way an article like this is a candidate for speedy deletion. RichyBoy 13:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep edit if neccessary to remove unverifiable material, its use is widespread (searching within actual news organisations and not google in general I found27 Time magazine articles, 9 Newsweek articles and 5 BBC pages) however it is used as a shorthand with the unspoken assumption of what everyone knows what it means and I couldn't find an actual definition of the term.KTo288 15:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I suppose it has gotten into the common use. So it will need to be rewritten to indicate that, and remove the nonsense. As it is considered desirable to improve an article at AfD, I have removed a good deal of the nonsense right now., since it seems it will be kept. DGG (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and now some more. I also started cleaning the references. I notice that almost all the material in the original article did NOT support the use of MTV generation. I have not yet added the material linked to above. Possibly the article should be split--most of the contents seems to discuss the term "9/11 Generation" DGG (talk) 17:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but cleanup, etc. as necessary. Very notable term and one we're also likely to hear more of as the MTV Generation takes over from the Baby Boomers. 23skidoo 16:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP, yes cleanup would be nice, but why all the hostility? This term, evidently coined by Strauss and Howe, is probably the best possible term to refer to the "cusp" between generations X and Y, or those people born between the mid 1970s and the mid or late 1980s. They were basically too young for X fads like 1980s/early 90s music, but are probably mostly already too old to be considered the "heart" of generation Y; they exhibit both reactive/independent (X-like) qualities as well as heroic/rational (Y-like) qualities.Shanoman 18:17, 13 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 — Caknuck 20:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragged Dick[edit]

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

Dime novel, like many other Alger novels, which are not considered notable. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 17:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was the first novel by a well-known author, I doubt it would be difficult to find "multiple, non-trivial published works" about this.--P4k 17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, not his first novel. Still, there has probably been enough published about this to write a decent article.--P4k 17:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if truly an Alger story. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 18:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known Alger story, even if not great literature. Received a favorable review in Putnam's Magazine, Second Volume, July-December 1868, page 120 [20]. " A Hunt on Snow Shoes" (1906) by Edward Ellis[21] says this was the book that made Alger famous (p366), and that 200,000 copies had sold by 1906. "Growing Up Postmodern," edited by Ronald Strickland, (2002), page 53 [22] has substantial discussion of the book. Also analyzed in "Intimate and authentic economies," by Tom Nissley, (2002) [23] pp 78-80. See also at FindArticles McGlinn, Jeanne "Rags to Riches: The Horatio Alger Theme in Adolescent Novels about the Immigrant Experience". ALAN Review. Summer 2004. FindArticles.com. 08 Sep. 2007. [24]. Britannica gives this novel prominemce in their online article about Alger; see [25]. These cites, only a small fraction of what can be found at Google Books [26], amply satisfy WP:N. Remarkable longevity of notability, besides selling a lot of books over many years. Edison 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable book by Alger. jmsloderbeck 21:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.24.50 (talk • contribs) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:23, 11 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 — Caknuck 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian HolyLand Foundation[edit]

Christian HolyLand Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

From CSD, no opinion. Prodego ^talk 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article gives no sources independent of the subject; Google News and Google Books come up blank; mere 272 Google hits. Eleland 21:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per Eleland and subject does not appear to have distinguished itself sufficiently for independent sources or awards, citations, etc. Accounting4Taste 04:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable foundation. Keb25 13:41, 9 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 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transatlantic tunnel[edit]

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

A proposal for a tunnel not likely to be built for a very,very long time and not being currently seriously considered by anyone has no place in Wikipedia. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. FWIW, there is no proposal there per se. What there is is a perfectly acceptable article on various proposals that have been made over the years. As such, it has every right to be in Wikipedia, just as much as other proposals that have been made but are as yet impractical or impossible. Should we also delete Interstellar travel or Dyson sphere, since there are "proposals for things not likely to occur for a very, very long time", or Pangaea Ultima, a theory relating to something which will not occur for hundreds of millions of years, if at all? Grutness...wha? 00:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is original research for a nominator to decide that some extreme engineering proposal should not have an article because he judges it to be unfeasible. Google book search shows 195 references for "transatlantic tunnel." Some are science fiction. It is still a notable concept because it has been given substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources over a long period of time. That said, I would not ride it on a dare. Edison 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Grutness and Edison. Just because this is a proposal that won't become realistic for some time, its article shouldn't automatically be deleted just for that reason. --FlyingPenguins 04:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article serves a purpose stating that no such thing exists and none is soon likely for specific technical and economic reasons. Such an article is useful for many purposes, such as debunking investing scams, engineering fallacies, technical dares, and the like. It also serves to provide a nexus for similar ideas. —EncMstr 07:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, the article doesn't look at this as an investment scam or an engineering dare or fallacy. I suppose it COULD be done in case mankind decides air or sea travel are impossible. Maybe this article can be moved to Really idiotic ideas and other examples can be added. Yes, there have been some fictional references to this, but emphasis on the word "fictional"... you can probably find lots of Google book references to angels dancing on the head of a pin or a ~~Stairway to Heaven~~ (oops, that actually was engineered in a studio). But a 3,100 mile long tunnel? Would you feel differently if there was an article called "Transatlantic bridge"? Natl1 is right. This is a silly article about a hypothetical concept that people talked about 100 years ago. Mandsford 14:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't that an argument for keeping it? If an idea has been around for so long, then it's a worthy article for expansion, not deletion. —EncMstr 15:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see this as being any less worthy of an article than many of the other articles on Wiki regarding proposed plans, etc. As long as it's cited, etc. etc. In response to Mandsford's comment above, it looks to me as if WP:IDONTLIKEIT is rearing its head there. The question is whether the topic is a viable and notable topic for Wikipedia and as far as I'm concerned it satisfies the criteria and is just as worthy as Bering Strait bridge, which could also be considered a "really idiotic idea", too (I just noticed they're considering a tunnel for it, too). 23skidoo 16:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response No, I love it. Lots of little kids think it would be neat if there was a tunnel under the ocean, and it shows a wonderful curiosity about the world, and that type of naivete in a child is okay. The same qualities in an adult are kind of sad. Mandsford 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same might have been said about space travel a hundred years ago or transoceanic telegraph cables two hundred years ago. Thankfully, there are still enough borderline nut-jobs at DARPA, in the academic realm, etc. that can mill such things over till they find efficient ways to implement them. That said, even if this never becomes something that can be effectively/efficiently implemented, it still meets WP:NOTE. MrZaius^talk 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought about the space travel analogy... would someone in the 1920s have thought that America and Russia should, let alone would, spend billions of dollars on trying to send a rocket to the moon? On the other hand, there was an argument that a transatlantic cable or development space flight would be inventions that were the offspring of necessity. We're not voting on a budget here, and I see this debate is going to result in a keep vote, but is there any circumstance where there would ever be a need for a transatlantic tunnel? I compare it to "digging a hole to China" Mandsford 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the people who are saying Keep, please keep in mind that there are probably thousands of similar major, at this time absurd, infrastructure proposals which aren't guaranteed or even likely to occur and these proposals have always been around. Would you like to make an article about those ideas in your head too.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone uses the ideas in my head as the basis for a Discovery Channel documentary and as a plot element in numerous works of science fiction (one of them written by no less of a persona than Nevinyrral himself), then yes. Furthermore, I'm still not seeing how this is supposedly any different from a Dyson sphere, surely that too is an outworldly concept nobody can ever build? --Agamemnon2 11:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, because although such a tunnel is entirely hypothetical it does appear to be an established sci-fi concept. However, in it's present state the article has no references and so tends to read as original research, and this is something that needs to be addressed. PC78 17:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to respond to Natl1, this is not just something made up after school one day. This is the subject of a number of published works of science fiction and this is the subject of a Discovery Channel special. Much like space elevator et al, this theoretical infrastructure project is less a violation of WP:NOT than a notable concept in science fiction and notable topic of scientific discussion like the slightly more outlandish, but still notable, strategies described at Mitigation of global warming. Sure as hell need citations here, but deletion isn't warranted. Plain enough that adequate sources are available to make a stronger case for notability. MrZaius^talk 17:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC) PS: There are obviously a ton and a half of book and scholarly sources as well that can be used to write a clean citation. Also a nice published and quotable Harrison essay[reply]

Strong keep. Per all of the above obvious reasons. • Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple independent references (albeit mostly fictional) so passes notability test. "Not likely to be built" is not grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 13:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gandalf61 and others.Biophys 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- People have been dreaming about it for a long time, and will almost certainly continue to do so... AnonMoos 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, until they have to itemize their tax returns. Mandsford 17:34, 12 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.