Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 2

< January 1	January 3 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Spebi 07:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Park at French Creek[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helotes Park Terrace. Provides no assertion or indication of notability. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." With a sigh, I did a Google search, and as expected, turned up nothing notable whatsoever. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Tanthalas39. Mh29255 (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smells like WP:OR too. -- Emana (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was' 22:45, 7 January 2008 Lectonar deleted (A7, spammy, no real context) 'Non-admin closure_Jame§^ugrono 15:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shockwave (webpage)[edit]

This page is unnecessary; the Shockwave plugin has its own page. Alloranleon (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, shockwave is a web service that provides games like Wildtangent. Enter to: [www.shockwave.com]
Speedy delete, no context. We could conceivably have an article on Shockwave.com, which is a subsidiary of AtomFilms, a major game site, and not the "webpage" for the plugin. But this certainly isn't it. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context or content, either. Adobe Shockwave already has an article as mentioned above, along with the parent company, Adobe Systems. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, I point out that Shockwave.com -- the online gaming site this article covers -- is no longer part of Macromedia/Adobe. Of course, that the article fails to explain this is another strike against it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article fails to assert any notability WP:N about the website and appears to have been written as a short advertisement. Mh29255 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No context. Think outside the box 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1 - 52 Pickup (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Sir Foily

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) per CSD A3. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Foily[edit]

Nonsense article Alloranleon (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err - Speedy A3/G2, I suppose. This article consists _entirely_ of the AfD, it has no history. Should be deleted, obviously, but... Tevildo (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire[edit]

Also nominating for the same reason

Four months after first nomination, article is still unsourced and speculative; article is almost entirely a description (i.e. plot summary) of who wears what with almost no explanation of real-world Why? or So what? Two assertions about movie production are uncited -- and, even if cited, are insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree fully with nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Length of time during which an article hasn't been improved is irrelevant as to whether or not an article should be deleted. Citations can be added. The article can be cleaned up. There is no time limit during which either of these must take place. Rray (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can be, can be, can be -- since June 2004, it hasn't been. I suspect a main reason there aren't any sources is that there isn't any meaningful content to cite. Editors haven't met the burden of proof for verifiability to sustain this article. --EEMIV (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After all this time, prove that it can be sourced. Or don't, because the subject seems too trivial for a general encyclopedia, and footnotes that prove that these insignia are used by the Galactic Empire wouldn't fix that. Noroton (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article states that "Star Wars producers have [n]ever firmly established a pattern and system for the Imperial rank insignia seen in Star Wars. This has led to much speculation, conjecture, and entertainment by Star Wars fans" but can't even source that. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these awards have no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Wars canon, let alone any notability in the real-world.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doubtful these articles can pass notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Galactic Empire is pretty well known and so the various ranks of it is something many readers will be interested and considering the notability of the topic, it should be reasonably verifiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Empire may be notable, but how is its rank structure? Where is evidence of the ranks' notability explained in these articles' five-year history? --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless can establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The passage of time is relevant here. We can't go on saying "it might improve" when it is clear that nobody is going to improve it. Mayalld (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article itself, which states: "Neither Lucas or the Star Wars producers have ever firmly established a pattern and system for the Imperial rank insignia seen in Star Wars." Therefore, such information could only ever be fan speculation. Even if it were 100% official, I can't see such a thing being covered in a general-interest encyclopedia anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 not notable by Dlohcierekim before I was aware of this discussion. Dloh cierekim 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rootbeertap[edit]

Scarcely any encyclopedic notability Alloranleon (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unintelligible drivel. <K F> 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete either under WP:CSD#G1, patent nonsense or under WP:CSD#A7, non-notable bio (since it has to do with an in-game character). Take your pick, but I've tagged it under G1 Yng varr 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G1. Article creator removed db-nonsense tag. Pretty much no need for further discussion; WP:SNOW. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE above Tell me about it. I hate it when they do that, blatant conflict of interest. Argh. Alloranleon (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Due to my fame in the game World of Warcraft i have been asked by many to place an informational page on wikipedia about who i am. Though this page may not meet specific rules or guidelines, I am learning and would be more than happy to tailor my page to your wishes. Respectfully yours, Rootbeertap

Apparantly they didn't pool together to get you grammar lessons. No offense, but your page has no notability or relevance... Alloranleon (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've placed a welcome message on the users talk page, and a note on the contested talk page, with some general information on why this will pretty much never be. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, so I hope the author will heed both this general discussion as well as the information provided on the basic policies. Yng varr 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important Check out that link in the article, the one leading to the WoW forums. Bottom message. Pretty much explains this guy's motivations. Alloranleon (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ki (Dragon Ball)[edit]

This is a fictional concept that does not have real world information to establish notability. It doesn't require any extended coverage, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do any research at all into this subject? After all you made the same assertion about Nights (video game character).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability or provide real world context. In fact, linking to articles on the actual philosophy/concept may be better when mentioning Ki in Dragonball articles. Jay32183 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources exist[1].YetanotherGenisock (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not one of those provides significant coverage or discusses Ki in real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This looks to be mostly plot summary and/or original research as well, but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to determine which. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, dictdef. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anmwe[edit]

Of little encyclopedic notability, and Anmwe.com is a parked web-site, leading me to believe that this article has been created with the sole purpose of advertising Alloranleon (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little more than nonsense - WP:NEO with a random segue to a non-existent website. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Medical Corps. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International_medical_corps[edit]

The "International medical corps" page has a type-o title. It is identical to the "International Medical Corps" page which is where links from other Wikipedia articles go, like the ONE Campaign page. This article is a redundant version.

When duplicates exist like this, just redirect to the proper title. See WP:R for details. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helotes Park Terrace[edit]

Not clear why this housing subdivision is notable among the hundreds in each city. No improvement in the article in over a year. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no assertion or indication of notability, and nothing in 5 pages of Google hits. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked Master of Puppet's Google search, came away with same conclusion - no notability at all. Tanthalas39 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (clarify policy, please): My understanding from a year or two ago is that WP policy allows even very small geographic and urban entities their own articles. However, I did not find a reference in a cursory search. Would someone point to a policy guideline, please? If a contra-indicative reference is provided I'm prepared to change my recommendation. Hu (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Subdivisions are generally not notable. There is no assertion of notability in the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A complex debate with no clear consensus in my view to delete. Arguments for retaining the work and improving it on a day to day basis were particularly relevant. Concerns over notability of companies included in the list are met by normal WP:nn management of created company articles. I will also undelete all sublists related to this list (and then await the masses of messages on my talk page). I should also make the suggestion that the main list can be reduced in page size by creating more sub-lists for the larger company populated states.--VS ^talk 07:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States companies by state[edit]

This was prodded in June, see discussion on talk; no one disagreed with deletion but it was suggested that it be discussed. This seems redundant with the set of categories Category:Companies of the United States by state as is (there is no additional information other than an alphabetical list of names); many of the sublists for states have been deleted by various means which makes this master list rather useless. It was suggested this is a target for COI editors promoting their company, and is harder to keep updated than a category would be. Redlinked companies have been periodically removed (many were of articles since deleted for notability) so it's not useful as a requested articles list. Rigadoun (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. If keep all is consensus, can the closing admin undelete all the sublists, which were deleted via prod. They're obviously needed for the article to work and basically have the same merits/problems as this article. If delete is the consensus, the ones that still exist can probably be prodded. Rigadoun (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I say, undelete them all anyway. PROD is not an appropriate way to deal with the sub-lists of this list. It's clearly and self-evidently NOT uncontroversial. AndyJones (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep this list and its sublists. It is not redundant with the categories. It contains redlinks which cannot be captured by the category structure. If it needs help, then improve it. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: list is not encyclopedic, it appears to have WP:COI and Wikipedia is not lists or repositories of loosely associated topics, which is exactly what this list is. Mh29255 (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the whole list, including sublists - First of all, redundancy between lists and categories is a good thing, and deletion of one in favor of the other is discouraged, according to the guideline WP:CLS. Second, just because the sublists have had problems and were deleted, isn't a reason for abandoning the main list. It can be rebuilt and expanded again to sublists as is normal for lists. Third, lists are much easier and less time consuming to maintain than categories. Categories require tagging or untagging potentially hundreds of different pages, with server and download delays for each and every page. Updating the items on a list do not have those delays because they're all on the same page. For a comparison of the benefits of lists and categories, see WP:CLS. Lists are superior to categories in many ways, and are increasingly being used as tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia's articles. Fourth, almost any page on Wikipedia could be the target for spam/self-promotion. The only way to prevent COI completely is to erase all of Wikipedia, but that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The same principle applies to any subject. We shouldn't decline to cover a topic just because it might be spammed, or might be vandalized, or might be POV'd. We fight those things directly by reverting or correcting specific instances of them. We have thousands of volunteers/editors for this very purpose. And once such problems have been identified, we deal with the source of the problem, by going after the spammers/vandals/POVers themselves, either blocking them or confronting them via Wikipedia's dispute resolution system. Fifth, lists are still very useful as requested article lists even when some of the redlinks lead to an "already been deleted" notice. Besides, links to deleted pages should be delinked when those pages are deleted. If they aren't, then whoever runs into them should finish the job. The Transhumanist 06:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Transhumanist, who makes a great argument per WP:CLS. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Transhumanist said it all. AndyJones (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This list could grow to have millions of entries, not encyclopaedic Computerjoe 's talk 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category is sufficient and the list redundant. Keeping redlinks is not a good reason to keep a list. If the article is a redlink, it means that the company is not notable for wikipedia or hasn't been created yet. If the former than it shouldn't be in the list either if the later, use a project collaboration page instead to list companies that deserve an article but don't have one yet. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is listcruft at its best. There are SO many companies out there, there can not be any potential encyclopaedic value in such constructs. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 13:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a manageable list. Companies open and close every day. It is not possible to maintain the list. It could never be a factuall list. There will always be errors. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been looking at these lists, and have prod-ed a couple of the sublists slowly over the past few weeks. My reasoning behind the prods is based on a couple of things. First off, all of these lists are nothing more than an alphabetical list of names; there is no other information provided. If the lists were a table with Net income, or other anything else I could see keeping the lists. As current, they are nothing more than a duplication of the categories. Next, these lists are very hard to complete and keep free of conflicts. The basic requirement is that the company be headquartered in that state/country. There are thousands of companies that could be included in each of these lists. If we want to keep it limited to notable companies, then there should be references for each company to establish notability. These lists also seem to have many red-links to companies that were removed for various reasons. A list shouldn't contain a red-link to a company that doesn't have a page on Wikipedia; the company doesn't have a page for a reason (usually because it isn't notable). As a side note, this list was included in a previous AFD along with a lot of other lists. They all ended up being kept but the one of the main arguments was that the lists provided some information not captured in the category. For example, some of them included what sector or industry the companies were a part of, others included the market cap; which none of these list contain. Ank329 (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No sources, notability not established, even in the stubified form.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panetics[edit]

Incoherent nonsense. John (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I made an effort to clean this one up, but after finding virtually no significant sources unconnected with the founder or the organisation, slapped a {{cleanup}} on it and left a note on the talk page. As in its current form it seems un-clean-uppable (as per the note on the talkpage, I had to go to the organisation's own website to even work out what this page was supposed to be about), delete unless radically improved by the end of this discussion. Also at present fails to demonstrate that it has any notability outside of its own membership. — iridescent 23:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fundamentally unverifiable form independent sources, everything I could find tracks back to one man and one website. Virtually nothing on Google to work from, either. Guy (Help!) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the way this article is written, if the consensus decides that the subject matter isn't notable enough to warrant a cleanup attempt, we should probably consider Ralph G.H. Siu for deletion as well, as he doesn't seem to have any assertion of notability outside of this field. I will await the decision on this before starting a debate on him...or alternatively we could just lump it in with this one. Tx17777 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although Siu's article isn't up to much, his military record looks interesting enough that it could probably pass WP:N. It would probably take someone with specialist knowledge to write it, as Googling his name would probably be swamped with hits from this pseudoreligion. (Of course, expanding the article on him would mean mention panetics... which would create a redlink... which would be filled...) — iridescent 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per iridescent and JZG - and delete the other article too.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- essentially one person's theory with very limited reception. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While much of what the Humanistic Psychology movement generated sounds like nonsense to the average reader, it was a huge deal in the 70s and is hardly obscure. Perhaps an edit with further explanation should be suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ByronHudson (talk • contribs) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; also very, very hard to understand for someone who has no experience in the field to understand. If that could be remedied and sources could be found, sure, let's recreate it... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no apparent assertion of notability Dlabtot (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See here for example concerning notability. But of course the article has to be improved. <K F> 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as it currently stands, the article is nonsensical because it is totally confusing and because it is attempting to discuss what appears to be a psychological, political, physical & philosophical subject with unsubstantiated religious-based implications. If someone can fix this article, I am willing to change my mind to keep. One article that I found that seemed relevant is here: http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__cat/_c1836/Culture, but I am not an expert in this subject matter. Mh29255 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strangely, some who vote "keep" and others who vote "delete" want the same thing: a good article on the subject. Could we, as a sort of compromise, reduce this article to a stub, add this deletion discussion (which includes some sources) to its talk page and wait for someone knowledgeable to come along and expand it? <K F> 12:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This topic appears to be notable, but needs to be stubified. If no-one will do it, I will have to say it ca not be fixed and thus must be deleted. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one man and one website ?? pseudoreligious ?? Siu wrote in 1964 "TAO OF SCIENCE" with one of the top established scientific publishers: Whiley: The Tao of Science: An Essay on Western Knowledge and Eastern Wisdom http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Science-Western-Knowledge-Eastern/dp/0262690047 - or SAGE as mentioned in the refernces - maybe someone can look outside of the box or certain jargon or concepts and bridge concepts and cultures - I feel lost as I have added some links and refences - to well known people like Johan_Galtung [2] - who spoke at Ralph Siu's grave an eulogy.

Siu's work is in the Library of Congress and the volumes are sold by his Panetics Society. So the question is "who can find another expert and can we afford anesthetics of and piecemeal wisdom. Another question would be to revisit groupthink and clanthink. (Warfield [3] - another member and collegue of the late Siu's ISP society) --Benking

Delete if someone finds sources that show the topic is notable and uses them as the basis of a referenced, coherent article that is 100% verifiable and contains no original research I have no objection. However such an article would have nothing in common with the headache inducing mess that currently inhabits the page.[[Guest9999 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete. The only independent source seems to be the citation noted by User:KF, which is a mention in one chapter in a Ph.D. thesis. If the article is not deleted, it should definitely be stubified. Hal peridol (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve and find native editor. The Delete entries above seem strange to me. The PhD Thesis of Goppold is nice but not on the level of life-time contributions of Ralph- GH Siu. Have you ever tried A9 (by AMAZON) [4] or Google Scholar or academic repositories ! References to Publishers like Wiley, Sage, MIT, ... and national sources are included in MY CONTRIBUTION and in entry of Ralph_G_H_Siu but that looks like being deleted last night. Strange procedures and conduct you maintain here in such discussions. I am awfully sorry that i am not a native speaker and have normally no time for exercises such as this !- how should i call it "Deletionism" ?? my advise would be: 1. explicitly display the evidence and reasoning that justifies a particular point of view; 2. refrain from using ad hominem attacks, slogans, epithets; 3. Suspend judgment until after having read the relevant texts, ....

and inform the original author - like me - when people like Siu are deleted without any information or discussion. I met Jimmy Wales when he was in Berlin some years ago - maybe he should revisit the "Deletionism" exercised at his "WIKIPEDIA" - as I feel there are many people with much sympathy but feel discussions like above look strange. This are my 5 cents - maybe some more and diverse reviewers are needed with WIKIPEDIA and laws like requisite variety should be applied, and if the typically user can not judge "a new science" and so stays on the surface and hide so statements can not be seen in context. --Benking —Preceding comment was added at 13:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I did inform you of this article's listing here. --John (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like nonsense to me Pilotbob (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub and Improve. As prominent people like secretaries of state and Peace Studies founder Johan Galtung speak at Ralph Siu Memoriam lectures, this cannot be considered valueless. Comp.: Individual(!) "Human Rights" was introduced to the UN by Mrs. Roosevelt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt, and is well known but not well established today. China (focussed on collective service) and Arab world denounce it as being a western idea only, based on values of Humanism and Christianity; there is no "natural" deduction of human rights. Would you therefore consider the philosophical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism as a pseudo-religion? In the "west", the "new" credo of individual human rights of self-development, incl WOMEN and CHILDREN, is so new that Human Rights education is still in its beginnings and the first curricula are now only being tested in European schools. UNESCO's special rapporteur recently complained about human rights daily being abused in german schools and a coalition of 100+ large german organisations is now promotion a change in elarning culture http://www.national-coalition.de/ -- In the East, the reduction of suffering is a central issue, and it was for example a central teaching of the young, future Chinese Emperor to reduce the people's suffering (this was NOT the case in Europe!). In this tradition, we can see Bhutan's governance principle Gross National Happiness, which measures not only economical, but also ecol., spir. and cult. wealth (the Queen held this speech as opened of the "Global Dialogue on Poverty and Wealth" at Universal World Exhibition expo2000 in Hannover, 2000), and thus decided for ecol. protection measures in the constitution. This is discussed as a good practice example in eco-socially responsible governance for sustainable development, internationally - easy to the eastern worldview but not to the western, which is why Siu developed this approach to be further developed in humanist studies and education. A similar "thinking model" is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_Footprint, which is also only a general idea (an NO WAY a scientifically viable detailed approach) that indeed functions to nurture perception for global reosurce cycle issues and adopt more sustainable consumption patterns. -- Panetics are a step to "visualise" and "quantify" suffering (for example of Iraqi people vs benefits of getting rid of Saddam Hussein); suffering (not profits) is yet neglected in political decision-making neglected just because it is "out of sight, out of mind". Panetics is an approach to develop such thinking models. -- A problem here is that amateurs without knowledge of deep knowledge of cultures, religions, ethics, values, humanities, worldviews and their VERY concrete implications for governance are judging things inappropriately: pseudo-religion etc., which reminds me of the racist South African government 20 years back. -- My job usually is to bridge cultures and translate between ideas to make things understandable: which is - I absolutely agree - the purpose of an encyclopedia entry. I offer to get involved in developing this STUB into a legible and comprehensible article. I think it makes sense in the world today, to at least get the word and step towards reduction of suffering into the WEST's encyclopedia. Deleting it is quite a symbol! -- SUGGESTION: Give it a month, since this requires research for sources and links to other wikipedia entries dealing with related Eastern philosophy etc issues, and I can work towards an article, - with 1 wikipedia expert to have a look now and again on improvement concerning wikipedia ecycl. code: someone who has appreciation for the article and to see it developed, with some basic competence in intercult., humanities, cultures - not someone denouncing such as babble and nonsense (while admitting not having understood a thing; come on, people...). Well, there are in fact people that understand it. The thing is to rewrite it so people without academic education understand it. I offer joining in, but not tonight. Patience, please, and a contact.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltgeist (talk • contribs)
Delete As written, it's pretty much nonsensical. The problem with the reasoning of (paraphrasing) "let's keep it, we'll clean it up someday" is that, historically, it rarey if ever works. Wikipedia is a top-10 website with the eyes of the world upon it. There's no excuse for keeping articles this poor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as outlined numerous times above, this article is just so much nonsense. --Crusio (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is a misunderstanding about this article. User:Benking should be forgiven for having created rather clumsily a valid entry on a difficult topic. Panetics, despite its exotic terminology, is not a fringe science but a proposed discipline in social science: as such, it is just an idea among others. Is it an idea 'notable' enough to be included in this encyclopedia? The answer can only be a resounding YES, not because a lot of people know about panetics, but because dozens of highly qualified people have, quite independently, subscribed to it: suffice it to name Kenneth Boulding, Johann Galtung, Anthony Judge, and Ralph Siu himself who is a highly respected author deserving an entry for himself. In addition to Professor Goppold's work mentioned here above, there is a 1997 Ph.D. thesis by Russell Doyle Amerson entitled The universal duty to alleviate suffering: an ethical grounding for Siu's new discipline of panetics. The International Society for Panetics has been founded in 1991 by some sixty scientists, physicians, business leaders, scholars, artists and writers from several countries. The Society is more or less dormant by now, but it was quite active in the nineties. As showed in the article Suffering, panetics is still nowadays one of the few approaches that are proposed in the social sciences for dealing with the phenomenon of suffering in a specialized, specific, or systematic manner. User:Weltgeist volunteers for improving the article. I will help this person (contact me on my user page). And I will 'stubify' the entry immediately. Others contributors are welcome, of course. Robert Daoust (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normandy national football team[edit]

Contested PROD, article about a team representing the French region of Normandy that played only a friendly match in 1921. Clearly fails WP:N, due to the evident lack of coverage about the subject, so I think it's not worth to stay here. Have your say. Angelo (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One friendly game in 1921 against Brittany seems to suggest the team was formed more for an informal kick-about rather than to be a serious attempt at a "national team." Nothing to indicate any further activities since then or to suggest that the one game they did play was in any way notable. Tx17777 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any reason to keep an article on a team that has played only one game, and a game that has no notability itself. Peanut4 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tx17777. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Hardly even any context in here... Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tx and nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Tx and nom. Mh29255 (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would be more interesting and credible if a match report was written, but none attempted ClaretCarlyle ClaretCarlyle Contributions/ClaretCarlyle
Delete clearly nn, and unverifiable Mayalld (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]

This might be controversial, but I don't believe this article should not exist for two similar reasons. For some background, the article refers to Atlantic hurricanes that attained Category 4 status on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, which is a 1 to 5 scale that ranks hurricanes by strength. 5 is the top, and is rare; as such, it already has an article, located at List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Category 4 hurricanes are not particularly rare. The article identifies 95 of them since 1851, of which 83 since 1900; that means that in any given year (1900-present), there is a 76% probability of them occurring in any given year. For perspective, NOAA defines an average season as one with 11 tropical storms, with 2 major hurricanes in addition to 4 minor hurricanes, and by comparison, Category 5 hurricanes have a 29% probability of happening in a given year (based on 31 Cat. 5 storms since 1900).

So, the reason I am bringing it here is because I don't believe the article establishes notability. Per the notability page, The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Its notability isn't established, since Category 3 hurricanes and Category 2 hurricanes have similar, but lesser effects. I doubt there has been any research on statistics of Category 4 hurricanes, but regardless, the article largely lists the storms and sources a document that lists every Atlantic cyclone since 1851. To some extent, the article flirts with containing original research, since one has to sift through every other storm to find the Category 4 storms.

My primary reason for wishing to delete the article is because I do not want this to set a precedent. I do not want List of Atlantic tropical storms, as such a list would be pointless. The question is where to draw the line in the sand, and I wish to draw it and limit this sort of article to the very top of the heap. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, the category Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes has been created. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a something which i am only slightly leaning on the support side of things. I feel that if we let this go through then there is argument to have Category 3 lists then Category 2 lists and so on and that just isnt necessary. The Catagory 5 hurricanes are the most notable hurricanes and perhaps these lists should be drawn here. I agree that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and i believe it should be at Cat 5. I feel that this should exist as a category, eg. Category:Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes and be applied to all other strengths of hurricanes. However i am open to other views which i will consider before i really decide my opinion of the fate of this article. Seddon69 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, this list is bloaty and arbitrary. Most of its elements do not even have their own articles (nor, probably, should they). This is a list whose purpose can be better served by a category such as Category:Category 4 tropical cyclones. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, am I allowed to oppose the deletion? This article is not being deleted because it is not good, it is being deletd because you don't want to see other articles of this sort. Really, this is one article, one more article, in the millions of articles that exist on wikipedia. What does it hurt to keep it? And, this article has knowledge. Knowledge is what wikipedia intends to have the enrite sum of. If we are ever to accumulate enough knowlegde so that people can rely on wikipedia to have articles on everything, we have to keep this article, and other good articles that are being deleted just because we are afraid that we are going to have to many good articles. Any article has potential to get to FA or FL and this article has the potential to do just that. I very much hope we decide to keep List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes. Juliancolton (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While touching, that doesn't really address the issue, and citing millions of other articles is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This is a very nice article and provides an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes. The argument that the topic isn't notable is applying a different definition of notability than that used by Wikipedia; the nominator argues that it isn't notable because the hurricanes are not especially rare. However, "notability" for Wikipedia means the availability of reference material to write a good article. The topic is clearly notable because there is plenty of reference material; in fact, most of the hurricanes on the list have their own articles. If an article listing tropical storms is a bad idea (I agree), that doesn't constitute a valid reason to delete this article listing major category 4 hurricanes. BRMo (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:N, and I agree with everything BRMo said. Noroton (talk) 04:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article of this type MUST include data on category 4 storms that also achieved category 5 status. Doing otherwise skews statistics and borders on original research. — jdorje (talk) 05:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was doing statistical analysis and drawing inferences, then I'd agree that it would need to include analysis of storms that achieved category 5 status; it would also be original research. However, this article is just presenting a list and some descriptive data. That doesn't constitute original research and is perfectly appropriate as a presentation of the data. BRMo (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take this argument to the talk page. But for the record, the article says "eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean" which is flat-out incorrect. — jdorje (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what it says is In the years between 2001 and the present time, eight Category 4 hurricanes formed within the confines of the Atlantic Ocean. That is clearly what it says. I don't know how you could have missed the first half of that sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very nice article, clearly encyclopedic topic. Plently of sources available to establish notability. BRMo said it all, really. AndyJones (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone here should keep in mind that the notability of a list is not established by the notability of its elements. Rather, the notability of a list is established by the notability of the list's theme. In this case, the notability of a "List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricains" should be proved or disproved by demonstrating the (non)notability of "Category 4" itself. The nominator seemed to be arguing in the right direction, but I believe the "keep"s to appear misguided. For example, I can probably dredge up a treasure trove of sources for List of Canadian actors to be interviewed on CNN, but that doesn't mean I should make the list, and it doesn't mean it's notable (which by the measure some of you have explicated, it would be). Someguy1221 (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment once per season doesn't seem particularly excessive. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per BRMo. The list isn't violating any policies or guidelines as far as I can tell. It definitely meets notability guidelines. When is this going back to Featured list candidates? The Transhumanist 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The argument I have gotten is that "category 5 is more important and notable than category 4. Therefore, list of category 5 hurricanes is needed more than category 4". This is incorrect. Take a look at List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. 3 of the deadliest atlantic hurricanes were category 4. Only one was category 5. This means that category 4 is more notable than category 5, dosen't it. Juliancolton (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a poor argument. No, that does not mean Cat. 4 hurricanes are more notable at all. As I mentioned before, there are three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes, which means there should be three times as many Cat. 4 hurricanes on the deadliest hurricanes list. By that logic, there should be a List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes, as well, since many of them were also on the list. And why not Category 2, since Fifi was 4th on the list and it was a Category 2? Why should these articles not exist? a) It'd become too much. Since 1995, there have been 21 Category 4 storms alone, along with 9 Category 5 hurricanes, resulting in an average of 2.3 Category 4 storms per year. Given there have been 104 hurricanes in general since 1995, that is an average of one out of every five hurricanes that would appear on the list. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would like to add that the notability of this article needs to be PROVEN with EVIDENCE. If evidence can be shown that category four hurricanes are notable then i would be willing to accept that this article should exist. Whether or not this article is well written should not be used as an argument. Category 5's are at the top of this particular scale and therefore notable and there are articles purely about category 5 hurricanes in general. I need evidence of category four hurricnes themselves being notable on thier own by their own merits. Seddon69 (talk)

Moderate keep. I've been asked to comment on this article, and whether or not it should be deleted/delisted. If it were kept, I agree with jdorje that you would have to include category 5 hurricanes within the article. Not counting a category 5 hurricane as having gone through category 4 first makes little sense to me. I saw a passage about not including tropical depressions in one of the table due to data issues. Considering typical NHC error on intensity (about 1/2 a hurricane category), that comment could disqualify any of the storms listed within this article as well as any related hurricane category lists within wikipedia, let alone tropical depression inclusion in a certain table. While I don't see a strong reason for this page to exist, I don't see a strong case for it being deleted either. NHC considers major hurricanes (category 3 or above) as unusual or rare...we can go one or more seasons without one...so hurricanes of category 4 strength are notable, if that was the notability definition you wished to use. I'm going to read up on notability...some of the other comments made previously are making me reevaluate what notability really means. Category 2 or 1 hurricanes would not be notable merely because of their wind speeds since they are so common, so I'm not concerned with lists for weaker hurricanes being created. There are lists on wikipedia that are less useful, in my opinion. If you included category five storms within this list and rename it something like Atlantic hurricanes which have reached category 4 strength the usefulness of the article would increase. I can imagine people finding the article useful, if modified in this fashion. I don't think it should be deleted merely because it does not focus exclusively on landfalling tropical cyclones. If deletion is passed because the article is considered original research, any of the project's ACE pages would also be up for deletion on similar grounds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see some evidence that specifically talks about category 4. I feel that be a major hurricane merely clumps it together with 3, 4 and 5. In this case it should be a [List of Atlantic major hurricanes] which would pass under notability. Also Category 5 hurricanes are notable in their own merits and are tlked about as a single entity. I feel that this article cannot be supported as being notable by itself. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Seddon, as per our discusson on IRC. From WP:N, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." In this case the question is whether category 4 hurricanes, as a group, are notable, and the wikipedia guideline is to look for independent/outside sources that make that distinction. The easy comparison here is to look at category 5 hurricanes, where such a distinction IS made by a lot of sources; see here and here, among many others. But is it possible to find similar examples for Category 4 storms? I do not believe so. Therefore, most of the arguments up to this point on both sides are misguided. It does not matter how rare or common such storms are (lists can be any length, if the list is otherwise justified), nor that the article gives an excellent summary of the history of many major hurricanes (side note: a "major hurricane" is defined as Category 3 or greater), nor that there's sufficient reference material to write good summaries of each storm (every Atlantic storm since 1851 has enough material for a good summary; that doesn't mean that List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A would be a good list, although it would cover nearly as many interesting storms as this article does). In summary, this list does not meet wikipedia notability guidelines, and so I am casting my vote for delete. As another side note, however, you could probably make a case that List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes does meet notability requirements, as that's the cutoff for a "major" hurricane which the NHC does use as a criteria for some lists and danger assessments. — jdorje (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, category 4 hurricanes/typhoons would be non-notable yet category 1, 2, 3, and 5 would be notable. If a storm has reaches category 1, it is no longer a tropical storm. There is a LOT of research out there singling out hurricanes/typhoons/severe cyclonic storms as a subgroup from weaker tropical cyclones, and press coverage increases significantly for storms that have winds of 65 knots versus 60 knots, which would therefore make storms reaching category 1 strength notable. There have also been published studies mentioning that most tropical cyclones which reach hurricane/typhoon strength peak out at the category 2 level. So even though they're the most common, category 2 hurricanes are somehow more notable just because there has been specific research mentioning category 2 hurricanes? Because researchers and the media do nothing special for category 4 hurricanes, that makes them non-notable? Have I understood your point correctly? To me, that would more fully open the pandora's box that led to this deletion suggestion, for better or for worse. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are three differences. First, WP:N speaks about sources being "independent of the subject"; although it is a bit vague on this, my interpretation is that internal research on a particular category would not in itself make a list of that category's storms notable. Second, research or articles that simply mention a particular category are not relevant to this argument (JC please take note, as this is primarily what you are pointing to); we are not talking about individual storms but about the list itself - note that the two examples I gave for the Cat5 list are basically duplicates (though with much less detail) of the WP list article itself. Third, the cutoffs are as you say, with the distinctions being of category 1+ (aka hurricanes), category 3+ (aka major hurricanes), and category 5; none of these include the 3/4 boundary which is the one in question here. — jdorje (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - This site states that Major hurricanes, categories 3 4 and 5, are "rather rare". This means that category 4 is a major hurricane, notable, and are just as notable as a category 5. Juliancolton (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Rarity is not a criteria for notability. Secondly, that site does not help your argument as it distinguishes between "major" (3+) and non-major hurricanes. Thirdly, the source does not give a LIST of any hurricanes, much less category 4 hurricanes, so it cannot be used as an example of why a list of category 4 hurricanes is a notable list. — jdorje (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not a good argument. By that theory, a meteor shower that occurs once every hundred years is not notable. Or, that an illness that effects 2 1 person a year is not notable because that person didn't die. And yes, in this case rarity is notablity. Juliancolton (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're reading more than he actually wrote. Saying that "X is not a criterion for notability" is very different from saying "X is a criterion for non-notability." Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        After going over the notability page (again), I think the list is notable because a) category 4 hurricanes are a subset of major hurricanes and common sense would indicate that if major hurricanes are notable, so would category 4 and 5 hurricanes since they are subsets of major hurricanes (common sense is mentioned in the notability page). Secondly, there are plenty of references (HURDAT particularly) indicating intensity of tropical cyclones, which makes it easy to determine which storms fit category 4 intensity. Hurricane categories are explicit in the best track for hurricanes impacting the lower 48, and NHC has created a list of hurricanes impacting the United States in particular since 1851. I believe the common sense provision would prevent lists being made of category 1 and 2 hurricanes. To some degree, the List of notable Atlantic hurricanes article is already a variation on a list of category 1 or greater tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Basin. There is no list, that I know of, that lists hurricanes of any category other 5. For that matter, there are few sources that lists tropical cyclones by amount of rainfall country by country. Does that fact kill any of the TC rainfall lists that I've been creating for the project? Also, the page does mention that there are exceptions to any wikipedia rule. Some of us have seen firsthand what happens when we apply hard and fast rules to articles, their contents, and people's reactions to comments made about such rules and articles...people can get testy and drop out of the project, even if that was never the intent. Maybe that's why we have fewer people in the project now than several months ago. Since the article is already created, I still vote to keep it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then this article is to be kept then. We should wait for the other parties to voice their opinion before this AfD is closed but seen am im here i think that we need to strongly think about whether a similar list should or should not exist, and also whether this means that there is an argument that all cat 4 hurricanes should have an article whether or not they make landfall. I will start up a discussion on the WP:TC talk page but we need to decide whether articles like that should only be published if they are of a high enough standard otherwise it may result in huge number of low quality low notability article that are simply not gonna get very far. I think that we should rely on common sense in these cases. Seddon69 (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict)I personally do not think major hurricanes are notable. Though they are somewhat rare, there are, on a long term average, two of them per year, and since 1995 there has been an average of 3.7 per year. Though there are clear sources for what were Cat. 4 hurricanes, as Jdorje mentioned above, those same sources could be used to create List of Atlantic hurricanes beginning with the letter A. There would be no need to make such a list. By contrast, the tropical cyclone rainfall by country is very much notable, as it very much so lists the top 10. At the same time, there would be no need to have an article on the 11th through 20th greatest tropical cyclone rainfall by country. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        DR, the notability "guideline" (not rule) is to be applied to *topics* not to individual bits of data; while I'm not sure which rainfall lists you refer to (Category:Lists_of_tropical_cyclones has no rainfall list articles or topics), including rainfall data on an already notable topic is certainly justified. Further, common sense does not say, to me, that an arbitrary subset of a major list is notable; while I'd agree that List of Atlantic hurricanes and List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes and maybe List of major Atlantic hurricanes would be justified, that does not imply that a Category 4 list is. Again, notability applies to *topics* and the topic here is the list itself. Seddon, I'm fairly sure by the notability guideline almost every hurricane with a TCR will qualify as notable enough for a separate article, though common sense (and wikiproject guidelines) limits the creation of so many stub articles. Hink, rarity is still not a criteria for notability, nor is commonness a criteria for non-notability, and I think arguing based on that isn't going to get us far. That said, I am through arguing on this topic and if the decision is to keep (as it seems to be based on people liking the article, and despite its non-notability) then I'll instead turn my efforts in getting JC to fix it. — jdorje (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have any problems with this list, notable and well sourced.--JForget 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable subject within Wikipedia guidelines. It meets WP:LIST and is relevant notable and verifiable information Pilotbob (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; various speedy deletion criteria also apply. Deleted as CSD G11: Blatant Advertising by AQu01rius. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rego's Graphic Design[edit]

Prod tag removed by creator without explanation. Non-notable company, zero information other than links to website. Blatant advertising Tx17777 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as practically empty. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Practically no content. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable company, and an ad. Malinaccier (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Additionally, all 9 non-wiki ghits are myspace pages; no hits in google news. This is certainly a type of article I'd expect to find ghits for if it was notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 - 52 Pickup (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy A1 or A7 - Ii doesn't look like an ad to me. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krystie McCauley[edit]

no assertion of notability per WP:N. Mh29255 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The notability assertion was hidden deep at the bottom of the article. I fixed it and wrote an adequate lead section. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – One reference does not make a star. I could not even find that one Shoessss | Chat 13:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The AfD question is whether she is notable, not whether the article asserts that she is. It's often hard with reporters, writers, academics, etc., because they are notable for what they say, not who they are. However, I could not dig up anything on this person after a whole bunch of google searches. It doesn't help that the article title and the article itself spell her name differently. Offline sources are just fine, but without looking at them I have no way to know if they support notability. Quite possibly she is simply not notable even if the magazine perhaps is. Probably should be deleted unless we can get a clear source. 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kubigula (talk) 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at (and reformatted) the refs provided in the article. As a result I have removed one dead link, and one that simply lists "every former LI News Tonight intern, student aid and teaching assistant…" which was being used to assert that she was a news reporter. Also split the last sentence as the refs don't mention McCauley at all. I haven't done any further searches - I trust Wikidemo. —SMALL JIM 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single reference does not a notable subject make. There's basically confirmation that she's a reporter in the references, and that's it for notability. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirected - we already have an article on this topic at Mao (game), and this isn't such an implausible variant spelling. —Random832 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maw (game)[edit]

Non-notable game, no claims of notability, no reliable sources, this article has had several editors so I didn't list it for speedy deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sounds like something made up in school one day. The reference cited is to a genuine card game, but it doesn't resemble the one described in the article, which sounds more like Mornington Crescent than anything else. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent variation on Mao (game), likely WP:MADEUP in school one day. <eleland/talkedits> 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Obvious BLP violations. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaf Jama[edit]

No notability seperate from Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky. Fails WP:BIO. It's a rambling unreferenced article based on a few news reports lacking any citations, calling this man a criminal and violating WP:BLP. I say delete or merge and redirect to the murder case. Also nominating Muzzaker Shah, which could be deleted by CSD A7 or A1 in its current state, although if you check the edit history some information was removed. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No citations, as the reference is broken. Also per nom's reasons. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a redirect, but I think this should be relisted for more discussion. The point is, an article like this is just not acceptable per WP:BLP. Calling anyone a criminal without references to reliable sources is unacceptable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spebi 07:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prescott ellison[edit]

Lots of superlatives here, but I can't find anything with a reliable source which shows notability. He does have an artistdirect entry, but all it does is list the albums he was a session drummer on, there's no text. There's a page for him at allmusic.com, but that's even less meaningful than the artistdirect page. He does seem to have quite the resume as a session drummer, but I can't find anything about him that's reliable. There's also another Prescott Ellison, which skews the number of google hits. The other one bills himself as the "blind black republican", so if you remove "republican" from the Google search, you get 59 hits, none of them reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Grandiose claims of having worked with the famous, but nothing to back those statements up.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:V, WP:NOTE, among other such policies. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to back up claims. Hence, unreferenced claims, hence, WP:NOTABILITY failure. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Illini Club of Will County[edit]

Appears to be a college booster club in one region of Illinois, but doesn't appear to be especially notable. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a UIUC alum, and clubs like this are local in focus.. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website (though an AfD starting today is really kicking a dog when its down!) LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... what is today? I didn't mean to kick any Illinois dogs. Lawrence Cohen 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think LonelyBeacon was referring to the Illini's less-than-successful performance in yesterday's Rose Bowl. Deor (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That went right over my head, I barely watch college football. Sorry, Beacon. Lawrence Cohen 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kiddin' LC .... you're OK! LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. Of course these exist, they would need to do something exceptional to be notable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Dhartung. At least Michigan brought some glory to the Big Ten =P. Malinaccier (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a college booster club would have to be pretty darn special to be notable. Besides, the article is crap, complete with a list of members and an email address(!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Treknobabble. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chroniton[edit]

Uncited with twinges of OR. Plot summary of minor device with no real-world content or context. Had redirected several times to Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton (where abbreviated contents of this page has been transposed), but an anonymous editor has regularly undone this redirect. So, bringing it to AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a fan of the shows. The article even states that there is essentially no real world connection to be made. It is an extremely minor point in the universe, and hardly deserving of an entire article. Maybe a redirect to Star Trek technobabble, if an article exists. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Treknobabble. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Treknobabble, as this doesn't need it's own article. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Given its occasional use in other franchises, Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton would probably be a better redirect destination. --EEMIV (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I support restoring the redirect to Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton. This is trivia and original research with no hope of improving, but if abbreviated and merged into a list - which has a lower standard of encyclopedic quality - then it's no worse than all the Narutocruft; It might even make FA status! — TheBilly^(Talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging or even redirecting to a list can be done without an AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Tanner[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It has enough coverage within this revision of the character list, and there is no current assertion for improvement. I imagine that there may be a few points available, but those would be better placed on the list. TTN (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you do any research at all into this subject? After all you made the same assertion about Nights (video game character).YetanotherGenisock (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this is probably sourceable. Though most adults shun the show you cannot imagine its popularity among kids of tween age and younger (maybe finally waning). More pertinently Saget has made a career point of turning his back on the character.[5] --Dhartung | Talk 00:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add real-world context, of which there appears to be a fair amount in a brief perusal of Google News results. JavaTenor (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Article tagged stub so its need of expansion is known to the project the article falls under. As the article includes references in pop culture, his notability is there, it just needs to be referenced. IrishLass (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Marvellously uncontaminated by real world content or assertion of notability. Better covered at the character list. Eusebeus (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT. I agree with Eusebeus, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate any real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Lead character in a notable series. This Google News Archive search shows 189 sources of "real world Content" that addresses the character. Once additional sources are added, I am willing to consider upgrading my vote. Alansohn (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Alan's unintentional "commentary" above, whilst disagreeing with his !vote: his indolent google archive search, whilst perhaps providing "real world content", fails to provide the kind of real world content that can stand on its own without requiring qualifying quotation marks around it. Yes, google archive confirms that Bob Saget did indeed play Dan Tanner. Wikipedia notability policies, however, require slightly greater assertion of notability (pace Bob Saget). Eusebeus (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am deeply moved by the spectacularly hypocritical !vote cast by Eu that ignores assertions of notability and ample real world content, and justifies deletion by asserting that a merge should be the end result. Hard to tell though if the customary hypocrisy and haughtiness is intentional, or otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alan, I'm touched that you responded, since I know you normally like to stay above the fray and rarely remonstrate with those with whom you disagree. In that spirit, allow me to apologise unreservedly for my hypocrisy, spectacularly as it has proven to flourish on this occasion, and by way of remorse note that, you are, as always, right; that indeed 189 "sources" which tell us - 189 times ! - that Danny Tanner was portrayed by Bob Saget more than satisfy our notability guidelines and create ample need for this important cultural landmark to be treated with the fullness of encyclopedic rigour. My haughtiness must have, again, blinded me to the extraordinary irresistibility of your argument and no less the fullness of your evidence. A chastened Eusebeus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am deeply touched that Eusebeus, the patron saint of unprincipled deletionism, has been stirred from his customary sloth, best demonstrated by his traditional inability to type anything more than the letters "nn" as an excuse for deletion of an article, marvelously uncontaminated by even the faintest awareness of Wikipedia policy or evidence of having read the articles in question that fail his latest arbitrary whim. Eusebeus has come out of his torpor long enough to spew his traditional venom in response to a rather clearly defined vote and then hypocritically blame others for failing "to stay above the fray". Alansohn (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I vote get a room. - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Full House characters due to the lack of encyclopedic demonstration of notability (although it's possible to establish notability I guess, but this will take time). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus and Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources providing real world context. Significant coverage refers to the amount of usable information, not the number of times the same information was published. Jay32183 (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete every character article for any television, movies, and book that exists on Wikipedia. In a country where 99% of households have at least one television [6] television and it's programs and characters are real world. Something that is part of the average persons daily life is real world. Danny Tanner was iconic to the point that Bob Saget desperately tried to shake the image with raunchy stand up routines. The show has been off the air for years and people still know the character, people in the real world. I've thought it before, and I'll say it now, Wikipedia would do well to have a fiction section for television, movies, and books that could house these types of articles. But if you are going to target them one by one, you should go after them all not just one at a time. And don't feel the need to lecture me for my opinion (which happens often when someone disagrees with the voting or why someone voted the way they did). You'll not change my vote and that isn't what this is about. It's my opinion on an article and a lecture isn't going to change my vote. Thank you.KellyAna (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ALLORNOTHING. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And your point? Did you bother to actually read what was written or not get past the first sentence? KellyAna (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not discussing every character here, we're discussing whether there needs to be a separate article for Danny Tanner. But you seemed to suggest the reasoning of WP:ALLORNOTHING, which isn't really helpful ("Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, did you read what I wrote or just the first line? Try reading it all. I'm moving on now, I've made my comments BOTH about the article in question and my general feelings about these nominations. If you have a problem with it, fine, but that is not my issue. I've commented on the article, that's what I'm required to do. KellyAna (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (Replied on my talk page.) – sgeureka ^t•c 19:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite the all or nothing argument, you made other specific points. If Danny Tanner is socially iconic there should be reliable sources attesting to that in the article, and it has none. All the article does have is an in-universe character biography and pop culture trivia, and does not meet the muster for an encyclopedic article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my above. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Douglass[edit]

Delete as an academic who does not seem more notable than average under the criteria of WP:PROF, and I have not found any independent reliable sources about him. Flex (talk/contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find anything either on Google; 1. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't actually see any claim of notability in this article, unless it's the plug for his soon-to-be-published book... Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam for his to-be-published book. --Crusio (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable church planner. The academic side is secondary. DGG (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: His work as a church planter (n.b., not planner) is fine and good, but how does it make him notable? What reliable sources reported on that work? There is no indication here, and based on my searches and knowledge of pastors and academics in his and his seminary's denomination, I suspect it will be difficult to find any. I have nothing against the man. I just don't think he has met either WP:N or WP:PROF. --Flex (talk/contribs) 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. Given Douglass' record of achievements, which is very strong, there are very likely to be multiple sufficient sources that would attest to his notability, but such sources, being ecclesiastic, tend to be filed only in theological libraries, circulated only among theologians, and are unlikely to be online or uncoverable by a Google search. We have not heard from any theologians in this AfD; there seems to be a dearth of highly qualified academic theologians participating in Wikipedia these days. - Neparis (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On what basis do you rate his record "very strong"? This is pure and simple your judgment call, not verifiable information on his notability. Just because reliable sources may exist (about which I have my doubts, in this case) does not answer the charge of notability. If he is indeed so obscure as to have kept out of all academic and widely published sources, then perhaps he's not notable enough for the Wikipedia (yet). And, hey, I'm as much a qualified theologian as Essjay -- which is to say, how would you know if you had one? It's really up to any researcher, pedigreed or not, to prove the case. --Flex (talk/contribs) 05:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. - KrakatoaKatie 14:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable hotels in Hanoi[edit]

Simple directory of hotels. Wikipedia is not a directory. Dougie WII (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this stuff belongs (maybe) in Wikitravel, not WP. Triwbe (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Not all of these hotels are notable enough for an article, it seems, anyway...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chobe[edit]

Taken from UrbanDictionary - it said so in the link at the bottom of the page. See also, WP:NEO. My attempt at speedy deleting was apparently refused(?) Stephenb (Talk) 21:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Yes, it was. –Deletion sensei

Thanks - though no reason was given in the edit summary for doing so :) Stephenb (Talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my prod was also debated, the reason given: "Deleted warning: not necessary given nature of article and slang word it references". If they are contesting the article's deletion, then perhaps a merger, or just giving "Chobe" a mention in the Newbie article? Either way, Delete this one in question. ^Dlae│_here 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and while it's well beyond a dicdef, there are no reliable sources for this provided - appears to be a non-notable neologism with an original research piece written on it. Urban Dictionary as a source for Wikipedia articles? You've gotta be kidding me.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO and WP:DICT, specifically, and I quote from the first line: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO handles this. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; WP:NEO takes care of it. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable niche neologism. Alliteration ftw ^_^ JuJube (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a re-post which I have previously speedied myself. Deb (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The content of the References section consists of images of supposed articles about this person, not the articles themselves, and as such are not verifiable, reliable sources. Relevance and notability outside YouTube have not been established. I've held off the salt for now, but another recreation should be speedied and then protected. Six times is enough. - KrakatoaKatie 14:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutadam[edit]

This has been speedied and recreated five times times (indeed, I speedily deleted once myself.) However, I think "interviewed by the Sunday Times" is enough of an assertion of importance to avoid speedy deletion. Notability may be a concern, however, depending on the quality of the other items in "Media appearances". Marasmusine (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly salt. It depends on one's interpretation of WP:N, but dispite the references given, I do not believe Notability is satisfied. -Verdatum (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied it once because it provides no real references to notability; the only reliable one seems to be the Sunday Times, but the article can't hinge on one and only one source... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I agree with you, WP:Speedy#A7 is "distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources" Marasmusine (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls short of WP:BIO at the moment, but good luck to him - he seems less annoying than Chris Crocker, anyway... if there's more press coverage in future we could consider having an article on him, but not yet.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I got interviewed by the Chicago Tribune several times .... that does not qualify as notability. Though h i s is correct. Should more references come up later, then notability may be established for an article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MoP's reasoning above. Also, I noticed that the links to the articles are in fact only scans of the printed articles - I'm not arguing the fact that they were made, however in the form they are currently presented, they are not reliable. The scans provide no information about which issue they are from, so a citation cannot be made for the printed article based on the scans. Searches for "Whataboutadam" and the article's title on the Sunday Times' site provide no hits either. If reliable sources in reliable formats can be provided, I may reconsider, but I still find the notability questionable and the article is presented as a vanity piece. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He needs to be the subject of verifiable reliable sources. The JPS ^{talk to me} 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthieeness (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a video a fan of his didto one of his radio1 interveiws And on top of that hes had a few other radio one interveiws, but sadly he deleted the videos containing them.
He has a steady audience of over 10,000 and here is proof, subscribers = audience

10,000 is a LOT for youtube

On youtube he is #93 most subscribed (biggest audience) of all time [directors] and you can also see hat by clicking on his page.

Youtube is now literally the internet version of TV and almost as popular as TV Ruthieeness (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One big difference is that TV programming has editorial oversight. Marasmusine (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 salt per WP:CRYSTAL and recreation of deleted material. This is simply another incarnation of fan speculation that's gone through two previous AFDs and four CSDs. Enough. - KrakatoaKatie 14:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mechscape[edit]

WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL would apply, but the article doesn't even bother to speculate. It seems to be coming out soon, and I wouldn't be objected to recreating it once it's out and notable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a nothing article at the moment.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What is it? I have to go with the nom: when it comes out, then let it assert proper referenced notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedy perhaps, and salt. This is either the third or fourth time this article has come up for deletion one way or the other and still they don't get it. The game has no official confirmation, no reliable coverage, just some original research/synthesis involving some job descriptions on Jagex's site. There's a fansite link every time the article's recreated, quite possibly the repeated pushing of this article is a fansite trying to steal a march on its (future) rivals. If fansites do cause problems with this article when it is eventually created because of reliable sources, not in spite of them, I'd suggest linking Open Directory Project and removing any fansite listings. WP is not a highway for fansite traffic. Someone another (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MechScape Is already protected, pretty sure there's been more than one creation there too. Someone another (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom. The fansites are neither here nor there. RFerreira (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protected Redirect to Jagex#Future Developments - The issue with MechScape is not of WP:CrystalBall so much as it is WP:Synth. It can verifiably be established that Jagex have invested in the term 'MechScape', seperately be verifiable that they have been working on a new futuristic MMORPG, and separately be verifiable that they have been hiring people to create vehicles and other such things. All this is related to Jagex and is suitable for that article, and it makes sense to add one and one together, especially considering that some sources who claim to have insider knowledge have stated that MechScape is the new MMORPG and there is little evidence to the contrary. However, drawing logical conclusions based on available evidence is not the role of Wikipedia. People who are looking for Mechscape and MechScape should be content with "Jagex#Future development", so I propose a protected redirect instead of a delete (as per WP:SALT). --RS Ren (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protected Redirect per above. User:Krator (t c) 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RS Ren --T-rex 03:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consenus, defaulting to keep. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Moore (footballer)[edit]

This page has assertion of notability, but no references for it, and does not seem to have any "Google Hits" for it. Only decent hit was "Shawn Moore". No great notability shown. No hits with ' "Sean Moore" footballer Bohemian ' either. Admittedly eleven goals in a campaign is good, but not exceptional, or unique. Dreamafter ^⇔ 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Bohemian F.C. is an important and long standing league of Ireland club and so its players are notable, just as anyone who'd played for Manchester United in the 1930s would be notable. The player doesn't have to be exceptional or unique. I wonder if the nominator has bothered to look up the guidelines for footballers? Relying on google hits for someone who was active in their field 70 years ago is fatuous. Nick mallory (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would I find said "guidelines for footballers"? And just because the League is notable doesn't mean the players are notable. Dreamafter ^⇔ 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I doubt Irish premier division was a professional league in 1935, so the football guidelines just do not fit with it. My delete vote is strictly consequence of the current WP:N criterions, as the subject's only current source is a football match programme. --Angelo (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it was the highest league in Ireland at the time, so it's notable. The fact that it was amateur at that time is irrelevant. Rugby Union and Athletics were amateur until quite recently, that doesn't mean Herb Elliott gets the boot. Nick mallory (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Football League of Ireland page, the league was founded in 1921, with Bohemians as one of the founding members. Based on that, I believe Nick is correct in that the league can be considered professional as of 1930. However, Nick, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The player appears to meet the criteria specified in WP:BIO: He played in a professional league, or one that could be considered the highest amateur level at the time. However, there are no reliable sources, which does put a bit of a damper on things. If a source can be provided to confirm his playing in the league, I'll change this to keep. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't find anything in WP:RS which would disallow the source quoted in the article. Sources don't have to be online. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True... but if someone was as notable as is claimed, wouldn't there be at least one on-line bit on him other than just Wikipedia? Dreamafter ^⇔ 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily for a footballer who was playing in the 1930s. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And however true that may be, sources also need to be verifiable. A vague reference to a match program from a quarter of a century ago isn't overly verifiable - we have to assume at least one still exists, as it was used for the reference, but a program like that isn't something you can find in the library either. The very first paragraph of WP:V states "readers should be able to check that material [...] has already been published," which is rather hard to do in this case unless you happen to know a football memorabilia collector that happens to have a copy of this particular program. Hence the lack of reliability of the program. (Afterthought: Now, if the author could provide a PDF of this program, that might be a different story - I'll drop the author a line to see if that's a possibility.) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no need to discriminate against a noteworthy 1930s ballplayer who played for a club which dates back to the 1890s. RFerreira (talk) 05:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not discriminating against it, if I was wouldn't I be nominating every other player too? This one just doesn't show references to prove any of what is claimed. Dreamafter ^⇔ 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nothing sourced to merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Albania[edit]

Unnecessary article, as "Northern Albania" is not an established subdivision of Albania. Anything that can be said in this article can just as well be covered there. In fact, this article is clearly intended as a POV fork of Albania, designed to promote a nationalist view of Albanian history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful into the Albania article, and redirect or delete depending on whether this might be a relevant search term. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's a very new article with very little content, and I see nothing that's not either already said (and better) in Albania, or nationalist ranting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's where that "useful" bit comes in, hm? Not useful? Delete away. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. I believe this is indeed redundant.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article claims that northern Albania is the northern part of Albania, which should surprise nobody, and then makes various unsourced claims that bits of other countries should be included. Balkan articles being the minefields they always are, this one should be dealt with rapidly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: short, unreferenced, and also, seems to be a little nonsense. this article should be QVFD-d at the start. --Drhlajos (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, the temperature's dropping fast in here. east.718 at 19:52, January 4, 2008

Dragon Ball FO[edit]

Delete - Original reserch for a possible Manga cartoon that has cited the name of Kakusho Sitori which does not come up with any hits. There is no citation or reference to an interview which apparently confirms that this anime will be created at the end of 2008. The whole article is completely against WP:CRYSTAL. If this Manga cartoon really is going to exist it should be created in the Dragon Ball (franchise) first and with proper WP:V. Pmedema (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kakusho Sitori is not a writer, he works at Bird Studios. And it was on a Japanese TV channel, so its currently very hard to get correct references. In a few days, it should be everywhere on the net because of Dragonballs massive fanbase. DrVonDre (talk)
Then dont worry, we will recreate the article then. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOR, as it fails to cite any sources at all. Although it would be exciting if it turns to be true. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought Wikipedia enjoyed being the first with such info... Give it a month. It will be EVERYWHERE when you search Google. -DrVonDre —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs) 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you read WP:NOR and WP:CITE before any further contribuion. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wanted to say "Merge" but since a Google search revealed nothing, It's not even worth a redirect barring a verifiable source. -Verdatum (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sourced at all. Plus, it really is rabbit season. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a published third-party source is found to verify the content. --Farix (Talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this is from reliable sources, like Japanese tv. Ask every japanese anime fan, and they can verify this! Besides, why would Toriyamas assistent talk about a series that dont exist? If you let this stay open, it will be noticed and someone will bring up the evidence. I am already fighting a hard fight to get the name of the channel on LimiWire and stuff, because im a DBZ fanatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that you are referring to "some interview on Japanese TV",' however, you have not specified the time, date, channel, or program the interview was conducted. That is like adding information to an article based on "some book" without giving the title of the book, when the book was written, or the author the book. "Some interview" simply can't be taken as a reliable source. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:HOAX until sources can be provided to verify its content. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and possible WP:HOAX due to complete lack of reliable sources and the series not actually appearing. If/When its released and actually is noted in a reliable source (like ANN), no prejudice for recreation. Collectonian (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have to agree, if this had any real merit, ANN would have reported it by now. --Farix (Talk) 01:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sephiroth BCR. (Duane543 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete this now. DesireCampbell (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion is maximum. Any announcement of further Dragon Ball would be a major anime-media event; chalk up another wannabe wiki-hoax. Papacha (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete This is true, and i finally got the proofs from one who edited the page... The true guy who got interviewed was Yamada Tarō, search and see the truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonDre (talk • contribs)

Comment Swearing up and down that it is true isn't helping your case. We need solid proof and you so far haven't provided it. --Farix (Talk) 11:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People made similar claims regarding Dragon Ball AF, but to date I have never seen anything on that. It might be that someone supplied you with false info. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I did a search for "Yamada Tarō" and "Dragon Ball FO" and got nothing. I suspect this might be WP:BOLLOCKS, or at least a WP:HOAX. Even if not, there are no secondary sources and it looks awfully WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry for all the acronyms. Lankiveil (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per above. Simply unverifiable. -- RattleMan 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Farix and Papacha are right--if this had even a shadow of a substance, the anime news outlets would be All Over It, and I'm not seeing a twitch. Without anything to more substantiate it, the subject is unverified. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let it snow... Jauerback (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Yamada Tarou is the Japanese equivalent of John Doe. JuJube (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Let's write the article when there's more there. --Gwern (contribs) 19:46 4 January 2008 (GMT)

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

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

~~The result was Keep. Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC) [non-admin closure]~~[reply]

The result was Delete, non-admin closure overturned. The standard of multiple independent sources has not been met by the sources presented. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Professional Basketball League (2007-)[edit]

Nn league, only 97 direct google hits for this league, mainly blogs, trivial mentions, etc, only 6 direct google news hits, none of which are valid sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:V Delete Secret ^account 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this one's a no-brainer. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability established by this news report, as well as [7], [8], [9] and [10]. Corvus cornix_talk 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usbasket isn't a Reliable or independent source, the rest are mainly trivial mentions on very local news sources, not significant coverage required for WP:N. Secret ^account 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usbasket is most definitely an independent source, and I see nothing to indicate that it isn't reliable. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usbasket covers any basketball league, and it's blog coverage in which sometimes the league themselves add the info, far from reliable or independent, the rest talks about the local teams in the local newspaper, nothing about the league in general. Secret ^account 22:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though the league is currently lacking in news reports, its seems logical to keep it around until the season starts to see if its for real. If the ABA merits inclusion, the NPBL should as well. ABAsite 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with above statements. Plus with the Elmira nee Corning Bulldogs joining the league from the ABA, that has to give it a measure of credibility such as it is. If anything the page needs an overhaul, but not a deletion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about the sourcing concerns I mentioned, if it's lacking in news reports, or any time of Reliable sourcing, it should not have an article. Secret ^account 20:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do, however, acknowledge the existance of the league. Perhaps until the season starts, it would be reasonable to list teams that are confirmed and teams that are proposed, per the NPBL website. The Eastern Basketball Alliance has its own wikipedia entry and this league seems to be making an attempt to go above that. I do however, believe an overhaul would be reasonable. ABAsite 11:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.146.140.192 (talk) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete - fails WP:BIO, lack of reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Burns[edit]

Non-notable footballer - never played for either of the professional clubs on his CV - highest playing standard at senior level appears to the the Icelandic 3rd level. Previous Prod (months ago) removed because "Playing for Manchester United is notable", but he only ever appeared in their reserve side. fchd (talk) 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:BIO and the only source / reference seems to be pretty much blank. Peanut4 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO as he has not played in a fully-professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, that's all to say. --Angelo (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Idem -- Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thi is a NN biography. --Stormbay (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Backman Shull[edit]

Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As rare as I suppose it is to live to that age, the other supercentenarians I looked at all seem to have something more notable - though, for example, Marcella Humphrey is an exception I came across. -- alex.muller (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a deletion criterion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may be new, but per reasons for deletion, failing to meet a relevant notability guideline is definitely a reason for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She will be the new entry on the state age record-holders for South Carolina. If you delete it, then you have a link on that table that goes nowhere. If the fact that she appears on the table as a record-holder is not enough to keep her as an article...then the table is not important enough for keeping either.24.144.29.117 (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why don't you explain this for me? --RandomOrca2 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WAX is not valid reasoning. Thin boy 00 @169, i.e. 03:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the consensus reached re List of American supercentenarians and other national articles, articles should exist for individuals where there is sufficient independent evidence to support the >109 claim, as is the case here. While notability is established in this case, if there were any issues regarding individual notability, the article should be merge/redirected to the parent article List of American supercentenarians. Alansohn (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. As per the anonymous user, and she has more than enough inline references plus reaching age 113 is notable in itself too though. Extremely sexy (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - about the only thing said about her is that she lived a long time. ~~Only references refer to her death~~ - if she were notable enough for an article, you would have thought there would be multiple references while she was alive. And being the record-holder for an individual American state - means very little. If she was the National record holder, yes fair enough, but just South Carolina - no. - fchd (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just simply not true, and proof is here. Extremely sexy (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough - relevant bit of my statement above struck. Still can't see her being close to passing the bar of notability though*. - fchd (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She's a record holder within a US state for her age, which should be notable. I don't know if this will or can ever be expanded to a decent size, though, given the lack of sources that are likely to exist.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hueneme High School[edit]

Non notable high school in california. No major events have occured at the school and no major recognition has been given it aside from the existence of some somewhat notable former students (as most schools have). Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I know it's not official policy, but secondary school tend to be notable in nature. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not to start any arguments but on what basis is that? I fail to see any rationale for why a secondary school, without sources that show it as notable due to recognition, controversy, etc to be any more notable than any other number of bands, companies, nonprofits, and so on that fail WP:N.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMES...which you can verify for yourself here...and here. --Smashville^BONK! 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outcomes illustrates nothing other than that most of these AFDs never reach consensus. That's a far cry from tending to be notable in nature. Honestly its just another variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because other articles of similar topic have passed/failed/stalled in their AFDs doesn't provide much of a bearing on this one, and certainly NOT on notability. Notability is established by looking at an article and what kind of recognition it receives/warrants.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really go through all 11,000 of them that quickly? The fact of the matter is that if you even go back for the year of 2007...you most likely won't find one that was deleted on AfD (I went back to ~~May~~August when I was researching before). So...yes, it does matter if a consensus has been established. It's not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, it's a consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take any level of tedium to see that a massive portion of these AFDs (seems to be most of them, and WP:OUTCOMES seems to agree) just die. That's NOT consensus. You can't show consensus without establishing a level of agreement between editors. Last time I checked inaction is not akin to agreeing on a cource of action. Its anything from apathy to laziness to simply being unaware of a situation.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. "Reluctant" because this article is one of those select few that suck up time and energy better spent elsewhere, reverting the permanent re-addition of Dr. Joseph De Soto. "Keep" for the same reason we keep railway stations; because schools of this size are virtually always notable within their community, and invariably have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources, if anyone can actually be bothered to dig them out. The only reason it's not official policy, as mentioned above, is because nobody can agree on what the precise wording of WP:SCHOOLS should be. — iridescent 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established beyond alumni, which is irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Find me a independent resource to establish notability and I'll happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Oni Ookami Alfador and the idea that we should only be deleting things were notability is unlikely, not just that it hasn't appeared yet. It is very likely that any given High School is notable for something. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I think most of these high schools should be deleted, but it seems the consensus is that they are notable while elementary and middle schools are not. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Beyond the 'high schools are inherently notable' argument which I ascribe to, there is additional notability from the fact that the record for most rushing yards in an American football game was held by a player playing for this school. matt91486 (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alumni list now sourced. If an institution produces multiple notable alumni, there certainly is something to be said about it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Secondary schools are always notable. Malinaccier (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the SF Chronicle article and sourcing of 4 alumni (each notable enough to have their own entry) there's enough secondary sourcing to meet notability requirements, both general and the latest proposal for a school specific guideline. Also with an urban school with 2000+ students I don't think it's going too far out on a limb to presume there's more sources available.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Partial solution to rampant deletionism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school easily meets WP:N and our standards for verifiability. RFerreira (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brimley Road[edit]

Non-notable road in Toronto. Article reads like a page from a tourism pamphlet. No historical relevance. Suttungr (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be one in a series of Toronto roads articles. think we should let the creators run with the concept without chipping away at its constituent parts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability about this particular road in the article. Mh29255 (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most city streets are not notable, and this article doesn't do anything to assert that it is. It also lacks any references. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are reliable sources that mention Brimley Road, they are trivial mentions not about the road itself. All the content falls under the scope of other articles on Toronto neighbourhoods and transportation. However, I'm pretty sure that it used to be a concession road, and there's no doubt that it's major in bordering several neighbourhoods. –Pomte 08:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article pushes that this is street is more important than any other street in Toronto or the surrounding areas, nor can I find anything in 20 minutes of digging around the internet. Unless someone can find something I missed that makes this one special, I'd say it has to go.Aeternitas827 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's noting notable about this street for Wikipedia standards. --Son (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This entry will be worked upon. There is access to Highway 401, and is a major part of Scarborough's Town Centre. Dumping this entry at this time is anal. Bacl-presby (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, major arterials are not notable. Many roads have access to Highway 401 and are a part of Scarborough's Town Centre. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Highway 401 is a controlled access freeway, which by definition and intent means very few roads have direct access to it. Brimley is interchange #380 (see List of exits on Highway 401 (Ontario)). 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlikely to be a WP:50k road, and no other indications of notability. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:50k is a userfied essay, not a policy or even a guideline. 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. I know that - it's my userfied essay, and as such is the standard I use to decide whether I regard something as notable enough to be kept. I repeat - this ain't a WP:50k road. Unless other notability can be found for it, it shouldn't have an article here. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Brimley is formally designated by Toronto as a major arterial (at least the Finch-Eglinton portion, covering the 401 interchange) [11]. This designation has formal legal and operational implications, rather than being a subjective notion. ([12], etc). That desgination plus vehicle volume (32000/day) is significant and is now added to the article. Besides, hasn't deletionism gone too far? 65.95.173.151 (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Major arterials are not notable for Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - seems notable based on comments. It needs sources, though, and the "things to do" tourist information should either be deleted or put into some narrative fashion and made more encyclopedic, and sourced as well. Wikidemo (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Non-trivial news coverage of some incidents added and cited. As an intercity road between Toronto and Markham (as indicated, a major arterial with substantial traffic volume), it has notability and function for the same reasons as Woodbine Avenue which was unanimously restored at Deletion Review. Dl2000 (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - looking at it in context of List of oldest buildings and structures in Toronto, I'm sure that this road has plenty of Cites. The question is, are they still available, or have relevant newspapers all rotted away to dust. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yonge St? Notable. Bloor St? Notable. Brimley Rd? I don't think so. A road that goes nowhere in the middle of nowhere. Atrian (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "middle of nowhere"? Scarborough is a well-populated area of Toronto, the largest city in Canada. This road goes right through this area, and at least three notable attractions are along its length. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well sourced and of interest to road and local history buffs. Reggie Perrin (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Looking at it, my feeling is that this article is capable of acquiring verifiable references, as per Exit2DOS2000 above. The article does need work, but that isn't really a deletion argument and in this case I feel the road is notable. SorryGuy Talk 09:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Phoenix -wiki 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the notion that this "reads like a page from a tourism pamphlet. No historical relevance." (the reason we are having this "debate"). If this was even a problem to begin with, it's certainly been corrected by now. And of course, the "non-notable" thing has been refuted. --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure we should be keeping roads at all, but if so, this one seems reasonable. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have been greatly improved since nomination, note that several references use the road in the title of articles, so it appears to have multiple nontrivial resources. Rigadoun (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has doubled in size since the nomination, so it definitely appears there is incentive to improve this article. There are sufficient sources to meet notability standards - while some of them are trivial, there are enough direct mentions to make this acceptable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. Malinaccier (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oppose to Malinaccier, Brimley Road is a very notable road in Toronto. Filled with cultural diversity and landmarks, this road is highly notable. The Canadian Roadgeek (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Foster[edit]

Is this a notable person or a vanity page ? thisisace (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I hate to denigrate limb-deficient Eagle Scouts, but the only verifiable source is the minutes of a single City Council meeting. His claim to fame seems to be writing for the Amputee Coalition of America, but that organization's article doesn't include any references either.Kww (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice accomplishments, but I don't see the reliable sources that we really need to base an article on. Doesn't seem to meet notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried multiple searches as an author and Egle Scout, but did not turn up any viable independent reference. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot be verified. Malinaccier (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 (web). jj137 ^♠ 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Mafia[edit]

I was going to leave this as a speedy deletion under criteria A7 (web-based content with no assertion of importance), but thought it better to have it discussed here first. I've found it difficult to find coverage for this game due to the title getting a lot of unrelated ghits. Narrowing it down to "The Global Mafia" MMORPG returns 5 hits, none of which help with notability. Marasmusine (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldn't find anything that met wp:rs as well. Pharmboy (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find nothing either. It sounds intriguing asa concept, but WP:V is WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, obviously not notable and you shouldn't have been so hasty first time round.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Money and Karl Kash[edit]

Non-notable band. Only ref is a student newsletter. thisisace (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. No other references and does not meet WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC with two self-released albums and minimal independent coverage. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Cognition[edit]

The article is very weak on assertion of the subject's notability. It has been a year from first being written, and no attempts of expanding on the subject's notability was made. Emana (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm pretty sure any attempt to expand the assertion of notability would fail. All search results seem to be directory listings and the signature lines from forum posts.Kww (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to have any independent references to indicate notability, and thus doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A slim (or "shaky") consensus. Instances of usage of the term are not really enough to sustain an article. Complete lack of WP:V sources after 3 years (!!!) is really a nail in its coughin'. (sorry). Pigman☿ 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shake (cannabis)[edit]

The article cites no sources and references a slang term that is not by itself notable. To use an example: Blunt (cigar) is a slang term, but the idea of a "marijuana cigar" is notable enough to have its own article. "Marijuana crumbs", however, are not notable, just as there is no article on Cookie crumbs, Dirty plate, or Soiled underwear. The fact that there is a slang term for this does not make it notable, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang. Zenwhat (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to moderate keep I found it used at http://www.wamm.org/howtouse.htm and plenty of places that probably won't pass wp:rs, but this is a pretty old term (don't ask how I know....) and has survived the test of time. It is used as a semi-legal term (http://peterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=824113&auth=GALEN+EAGLE and http://cannabismd.org/reports/rosenthal10.php) as a description for a type of marijuana in more than a few legal and medical cases. I am sure it has a fair amount of cultural references in movies and such, although finding them might be difficult as it likely isn't the main theme of any. At worst, move to wikictionary. Personally, I would say recruit someone to clean it up, which is a reason to improve instead of delete. The references to potentcy of the different kinds of shake look like original research but could easily be removed. Pharmboy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal to move it to wiktionary, and your points above. Zenwhat (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that this may possibly serve as a "dictionary definition", I do not have any opinion on the move to Wiktionary because I do not know what their standards are there. For Wikipedia this does not meet WP:V at all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge of Delete - per WP:DICT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a load of original research at the moment, but as pointed out by Pharmboy this term has been used to describe this phenomenon in possibly reliable sources, so I dunno... it's beyond a dicdef though, that's for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems this is more a problem with the current status of an article vs what the article really is about. If the article is not up to quality standards it should be tagged and edited to become proper, not deleted. Also, Wikipedia to my understanding is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge and any encyclopedia specifically on Marijuana consumption would certainly include an article on shake. Furthermore, dictionary definitions are short and this article is already a page long. Even if this article does have some specific problems that the Wiki process is supposed to correct over time I believe that deleting this article would lower the overall quality of Wikipedia and move it away from it's larger focus as a whole to share the sum of human knowledge. :wq Triddle (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. This article is long because it details several definitions instead of just one. I am not advocating the obliteration of this article, just that it merge it to the appropriate article (if there is one). LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to point out that the use of the term in many court cases alone is likely enough to be considered notable, as it is used as a LEGAL term. The article doesn't properly document this, but the links above would be potential citations, and many more can be found. Pharmboy (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article as it is is unsourced, unverifiable and shows no evidence of notability due to the complete lack of secondary sources (let alone significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources). The lack of sourcing makes it likely that the article is completely original research and even if evidence is found that the topic is notable the article would have to be completely rewritten around the appropriate sources. Additionally Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles on neologisms should generally be avoided. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
very weak keep Badly needs referencing to reliable sources, reads very much like original research - authors must have material which they used for reference which they should share - transcripts of specific court cases as Pharmboy suggests, and even drug culture publications would be acceptable for an article of this nature. Question is, can the authors motivate themselves to finish the job? Riversider2008 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - from the huge amount of the info and google searches the topic seems notable. The article is interesting in itself. Still, as I do not have bandwidth to do real research about cannabis culture and improve the article once I have sources, and the article in current stage (although informative) is a bit ungrounded, I am pretty weak in my vote. Pundit|utter 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the entire article is completely unsourced, and has been outstanding as such for at least 13+ months now. There is nothing to salvage here. RFerreira (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is not notable enough for an own article. Shake isn't a cannabis product or preparation but drawdown. --mms (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect to cannabis Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fletcher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Robert Fletcher

NN vanity page mainly edited by the subject, a recent deletion request was moved by User:81.1.88.135, whom I suspect is Mr. Fletcher Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only films are NN, and there is no other assertion of notability. If he is on the rise, then he warrants an article when he has risen; not before. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LB is right. Malinaccier (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Vanity page, evident lack of notability. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Lockley (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you suggest this article be ammended so to comply? Cheers. Bobbyfletch85 (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will open with two suggestions: the first is: if you are the Robert Fletcher named in the article, you need to be very careful about what information you add to this article, as it could violate WP:COI. I would check that out.

Most importantly, you need to include references from reputable, neutral, third party source to support what is being asserted. That is, if you were the subject of a newspaper article or a magazine article. Definitely read WP:V to get an idea. Keep in mind: most blogs will not be accepted under this policy. This part is perhaps the most critical, because the entire argument behind the deletion of this article is the notability of the subject. Notability is confirmed by verification. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any outside sources asserting notability. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep - I agree that this article lacks references but I am not sure it should be removed. Firstly, I'm aware that the Gordon Ramsay video, in particularly, is popular, (particularly in American fraternities). Whatever you may think of parody's, it is - amazingly - the only one of Gordon Ramsay on youtube which is somewhat notable in itself! Secondly, the article mentions the elderly woman in one of his films (grandma or nan?) as one of the oldest people to act in youtube which is notable but unreferenced on any other website. The one saving grace is that, I have heard of both The Handmedowns and Mr.Ben, both bands mentioned on the page, the latter particularly notable. The former referenced in the Bournemouth Wire where having myself performed in Southampton recognize, but alas, I cannot help with a reference for that as the Bournemouth Wire does not posess an archive!

Robert was placed on the Bournemouth alumni which is notable. I think the article is a little self-promoting given that the user has made most of the contributions however, I consider the Gordon Ramsay video notable and the individual seems promising. Of course, view of 'promising' is subjective. I recall similar conflicts of opinion regarding many other youtube performers, especially Terra Naomi whom had a page before she had a record deal. In my opinion, it's a bit of a grey area so far as youtube peformers are concerned and as such needs further consideration, particularly by bobbyfletch85. Carkypants (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "notable video", and if we are going to start creating articles for university alumni, well, I'd qualify for one. Neither of the myspace bands are notable either. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 15:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinap[edit]

WP:NEO issues, and wikipedia is not a dictionary Pharmboy (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:USERFY: delete based on WP:NEO with no real usage outside the single incident mentioned; or WP:USERFY since it's an little personal essay with no real meaning beyond wikipedia culture. Yng varr 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I second Yngvarrr's opinion, but we could be it an essay or something as well. WP:Take a wikinap or whatnot. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've seen it used before, but this is simply the first time it's been codified. An essay on the same subject would also be appropriate if not kept. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2cents I am wondering if we are being a bit lenient with the term because we are wikipedians, perhaps? Not used to seeing NEO candidates handles so gingerly. Pharmboy (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me, I don't think that's the case. There are many essays in the Category:Wikipedia essays which probably started as a germ of an idea, written in userspace. I'm not endorsing this be cat'ed into the WP namespace, just rather userfy it. I was going to say it's "cute", but I figured that the word "cute" might be taken condescendingly. I'm just offering an alternate opinion, and having it in userspace is quite different than having it in WPspace. Yng varr 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3c I understand putting it in userspace, and have no issue with that. I was just noticing that we editors are less likely to jump up and quickly label it NEO or simply vote delete when it is Wikipedia related. I am not saying I am immune either, it was just an observation. Pharmboy (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-referential neologism with no references. If someone wants to move it to userspace as an essay, that's fine, but it's not encyclopedic at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY if creator wants it, otherwiseDelete per WP:NEO Hobit (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Tony Fox. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Not notable enough to be on mainspace. I think I'll go get one now :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. Per all above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Keep this sort of stuff out of the mainspace.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:Wikinap, or merge into Wikipedia:Wikibreak. - Koweja (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... my page, looks like delete -- fine by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied by me. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balaboosta[edit]

Article about a word. Doesn't assert notability, no references, practically nonsense TheBilly (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You caught just before I did, it seems. per nom. Pharmboy (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#DICT. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:NOT#OR or, if it is real, then see above. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOT#DICT. Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Worthless. Borderline CSD A1 or G1.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty close to A1, and also WP:SNOW, so I've tagged it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Saints in the Harry Potter Universe[edit]

Fancruft, even the categories don't exist. Not notable outside the books (unlike some aspects of the Harry Potter series). Pharmboy (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnecessary repetition of minor plot details. Wikipedia is not a replacement for reading the books yourself. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 19:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: WP:NOT#PLOT. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong do not delete. This is extremely interesting. Das Baz, aka Erudil 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) It is not "unsigned." Das Baz, aka Erudil 18:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOONECARES. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. St Mungo (patron saint of Glasgow) isn't a fictional saint - so that makes it a one-item list. --134.58.127.72 (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless there is a patron saint of hopeless encyclopedia articles. There wasn't. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY .. especially a directory of TWO. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Saint Jimbo?--UsaSatsui (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all, though it could be interesting if Rowling gave us some information on it. Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total cruft.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No good reason for existence. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, absurd article. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is a Saint Mungo? Erudil 18:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, there is. Non l'ho avrai giamai creduto. Okay, go ahead and delete the list. I learned something new and had some fun. Ergo, je ne regrette rien. Erudil 18:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) O silly Robot, it is not "unsigned." Das Baz, aka Erudil 23:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freemuse[edit]

Possible copyvio. Permission to use under GFDL is asserted, but I don't see that on source site.. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi;

I can understand your concerns here, but the situation with this article is getting a little ridiculous. I found a dead link to a deleted article on freemuse last month; apparently a copyvio deletion; I had no idea what freemuse was, so I googled for it, found the info, wrote a small stub covering the basics; the stub was subsequently speed-deleted without even the courtesty of a notification to me, the claimed criteria being non notability, or lack of evidence of notabiliy; now someone else has come back & written the article all over again & yet again it's up for deletion.

Personallly I don't think the freemuse people would mind having the article here, but ok; lets check the source material, fine.

BUT COULD WE PLEASE HAVE SOME KIND OF CONSENSUS ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN ARTICLE ON THIS SUBJECT IN WIKIPEDIA OR NOT!?

I'm willing to rewrite it to fix the copyvio. I'll revise the copy, or do a scratch re-write stub at least, or a longer text if necessary. But I am not going to waste my time on this if it gets deleted again, especially without proper courtesy notification.

It's my opinion that there should be an article on freemuse here: they are an international organization, they do important work, they have a fair-sized presence on myspace.

& there are (at least) several hundred thousand articles on wikipedia covering matters of lesser importance and/or notability.

We don't need to save space on the servers this badly... ;)

but please, one way or the other, let's have an agreement on what we're doing here, because this is stupid to continue as it has been...

--Lx 121 (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--FOLLOW-UP--

found the gfdl info on the page cited as source material ( http://www.freemuse.org/sw184.asp ), it is there, about halfway down the page:

Copyright © 2007 Freemuse. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the text above under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

hopefully that means we're good here? :)

--Lx 121 (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, regardless of the copyright situation Mayalld (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable organization. Per WP:ORG, the article does not show enough supports from non-trivial coverage of independent and reliable sources. At this form, I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dougie WII, Mayalld, Dekisugi and EVula, We wonder on what basis it is that you say 'delete'. Have you really looked into this matter? If so, can you then please explain to us all why the wiki-page about International Pen (an organisation that works very similarly as Freemuse) should not be deleted as well? What exactly is it that makes International Pen 'notable' while Freemuse is not?

musiccensorship 14:51, 7 January 2008

Comment Please read WP:WAX for an explanation as the why "what about ...." isn't relevant Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment (after edit-conflict). Dear musiccensorship, the argument of "what about article X?" cannot be used to argue here. We're looking at the specific article and this article does not comply with the Wikipedia policy about organization (the other article may be subjected to another deletion also). Simple saying that if you can provide verifiability of this article by giving non-trivial coverage of reliable and independent secondary sources about this subject, then the article may remain alive in Wikipedia. Dekisugi (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes good sense. Thanks for explaining. Hundreds of independent sources such as newspapers, broadcasters, etc, have written about Freemuse (see [13]), so I guess this is more a question of how to make the non-trivial coverage of reliable and independent secondary sources shown in that article about Freemuse. Google shows that the word "Freemuse" appears app. 30,000 times in Google. On this page: [14] is a list of coverage of the Music Freedom Day (which is mentioned in the article). Again, how is such a long list best referred to? musiccensorship 15:24, 7 January 2008

--Music Freedom Day coverage, March 2007-- R A D I O • Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC: One week of dedicated programming, called Censor-This!, involving 17 programmes and including a one hour music documentary, from 18-24 February 2007, and then repeating the music documentary on 3 March for Music Freedom Day. Read more on: cbc.ca/censorthis • Radio Canada’s Espace Musique: (quoting host Dan Behrman) "keeps talking about it before and after 3 March". • British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC in UK: Radio 3 runs a radio report by Songlines editor Simon Broughton on 3 March. The BBC Radio 3 programme World Routes includes an interview with Freemuse director Marie Korpe and reports on Turkey, Belarus and Zimbabwe. The programme can be heard online, where the Freemuse item starts at 35 minutes in. Music Freedom day also comes up in the following item with oud player Adel Salameh: www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/worldroutes Simon Broughton is guest in the programme 'Today' for the morning of Saturday 3 March. (The programme 'Today' is the most important radio programme there is in the United Kingdom. It's where the politicians are interviewed and where the news agenda is set.) Simon Broughton says: "The discussion in 'Today' will include some general music censorship issues and then current areas of concern. I will probably talk about Belarus and Zimbabwe." • Daily Times Pakistan, FM 101, a country-wide public sector radio channel: Journalist and broadcaster Ahmed Raza looks into how they can contribute to and support the initiative. • Uruk Media International Organization and Iraqi National News Agency: Wessam K. Hussain has informed Freemuse that they "are ready to participate in this global day for the fredom of music". • Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation: prepares a day of specific programming for 3 March. Sølvi Foseide from the NRK P2 programme Kulturnytt prepares a special report. • Danish Broadcasting Corporation's radio channel DR P2: Journalist Anne Bro and the programme 'Bolero' focuses on freedom to express oneself through music in a one-hour programme on 3 March. • Swedish Broadcasting Corporation's radio channel SR P2: Journalist Mats Einarsson focuses on music and censorship in a one-hour programme at 5 PM to 6 PM on 3 March entitled 'Röster om musik och censur i Mellanöstern' ('Voices about music and censorship in the Middle East') containing interviews with Salman Ahmed, Masha Vahdat, Joelle Khoury, Khaled al-Sheikh, Jonas Otterbäck, Ole Reitov and Marie Korpe. Executive Director of Freemuse Marie Korpe is also interviewed by Swedish Broadcasting Corporation's P1 Morgon on 2 March 2007: "Musikcensur i fokus - Imorgon arrangeras 'Music Freedom Day 2007', som är en dag MOT musikcensur. Under den här veckan har det uppmärksammats i medier runtom i världen, och här i Sveriges Radio sänder vår grannkanal P2 ett helt program om musikcensur imorgon. Samtal med Marie Korpe, organsiationen Freemuse." • Radio France International (RFI) in English: the weekly World Tracks programme has a special theme on music and censorship on Friday 2 March. This programme is re-broadcast three times during that day. • France Culture: the weekly programme Equinoxe features a music censorship theme in the week up to 3 March • Radio Netherlands (RNW): highlights Music Freedom Day in its Dutch, English, Spanish and Indonesian language services. Member of the Freemuse Executive Committee Ariana Hernandez-Reguant is interviewed by Radio Netherlands' Spanish language service on 1 March 2007. "We pay a lot of attention to Music and Censorship on Saturday 3 March", tells journalist and editor Bram Posthumus, with at least one special on Freemuse and as the topic in the English language programme called Weekend Connection. • Radio Multikulti, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Berlin's section of the national public service ARD: The programme Meridian 13 – a music magazine broadcast from 10:05 til 13:00 on 3 March with presenter/producer Johannes Theurer and editor Dietmar Meinhold – broadcasts a five minutes live on air telephone interview with a representative of Freemuse's executive committee.

T V • Tishk TV, Kurdish-Persian tv channel in France: On 2 March, Sirus Malakooty (Iranian human right activist who lives in exile in Paris, founder of the Artists Without Frontiers organisation, AFW) has a programme about cencorship in Iran and in general.

O N L I N E • Mondomix (France): devotes front cover and a special site to the theme Music & Censorship leading up to 3 March. www.mondomix.com. Mondomix has more than 300.000 unique visitors monthly, viewing 3.6 million pages on the site. • Songlines (UK): produces a podcast with a Freemuse feature which can be accessed online on this podcast-address. The podcast includes highlights from the March-April 2007 issue of Songlines (#42), and Songlines editor Simon Broughton's 7:30-minutes report from Freemuse's World Conference on Music and Censorship in Istanbul starts 10 minutes inside the programme. It contains interview with human right activist and musician Sanar Yurdatapan, and Cihan Keskek from the Turkish band Grup Yorum.

P R I N T • Songlines Magazine (UK): addresses music censorship in their February-March issue. Editor Simon Broughton writes about the Istanbul conference in his opening editorial, and there is an article on Simon Bikindi. • Djembe Magazine (Denmark): publishes an article about 'forbidden music' in relation to an event in Copenhagen (debate and film screening) about music and Islam on 1 March, and also writes about it in the magazine's opening editorial.

Delete per WP:ORG. I would hardly be surprised if there's a COI problem here as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. An appropriate redirect can be set editorially. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arklay Mountains[edit]

original research plot summary for a fictional location. Ridernyc (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Resident Evil.Kww (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect I say a new article with list of all fictional locations in Resident Evil series (Since there are so many). —Preceding unsigned comment added by UzEE (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to a list of locations in Resident Evil or something of the sort, per UzEE. Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a Resident Evil universe article of your choice. Roll a die to avoid the choice making. User:Krator (t c) 01:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article asserts notability, is presented well, and is easily verifiable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mind showing where exactly this article asserts notability?Ridernyc (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Arklay_Mountains#Arklay_in_other_media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all Resident Evil films. To be notable, you have to be able to find references that occur outside of the Resident Evil franchise.Kww (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly successful films. That is a good deal of people who will be familiar with this Mountain Range. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know better than to say things like that. If there are no reliable secondary sources, they aren't notable.Kww (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as fame or popularity. Grand Roi, please read Wikipedia:Notability. Pagra shtak 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something that is that popular is notable and they are still making more movies and games in this series, so that notability is still increasing as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The movies are notable, and the games obviously, but that doesn't mean that the location is notable. just because the games are popular doesn't mean that all of their settings are. And the games aren't set there anymore, anyways.DurinsBane87 (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Grand Roi, you need to read Wikipedia:Notability. You are saying that popularity implies notability, when this is simply not the case, and the guideline to which I'm directing you says this explicitly: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Pagra shtak 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I checked out the page you suggested, but it seems to be something still being written and revised with editors reverting each other even in the past couple of days, which seems to suggest that there is some disagreement among the community about what is and is not notable. Also, don't these mountains appear in the most recent game in the series, i.e. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sections taken from the first Resident Evil games. Resident Evil 4 and 5 take place in other countries altogether. And again, just because the game takes place there doesnt make it notable.DurinsBane87 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Roi, the phrase I quote above, which you disregard in your arguments, has been in place since at least 2006. Granted, the wording has changed a little since then, but this is clearly not in dispute. I am beginning to find your actions at AFD disruptive, as you apparently have no intention of respecting Wikipedia guidelines. Pagra shtak 21:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to keep your personal opinions about other editors to yourself, Pagrashtak. Grand Roi has every right to present his vote. That's what this nomination is for. You might view disputable guidelines as rule of thumb, others view them as little more than yet another piece of overly binding instruction creep, so keep that in mind. I, for one, believe he has a point, and accusing him of ignoring guidelines whilst those arguing "delete" have clearly opted to present only the parts of said guidelines that they agree with is, to say the least, hypocritical. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 23:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're setting up a straw man. I have not expressed any personal opinions about other editors here, nor have I said that Grand Roi does not have the right to express his or her opinion. Meanwhile, you have called me a hypocrite. I think this has gone on long enough, so if anyone would like to continue this, feel free to contact me on my user page. Pagra shtak 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect The mountain range isn't notable outside the fact that the games take place there. There's also alot of original research. DurinsBane87 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No assertion of individual notability through reliable sourcing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is largely plot repetition, and is unsourced. In particular, the lack of secondary sources causes this article to fail to assert notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Pagra shtak 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - contributors should consider a gaming wiki for this material. No notability outside the series. Marasmusine (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon City[edit]

original research plot summary for a fictional location. Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. The city is possibly notable enough for an article. Some sources would help make that decision easier. If there are none (it's been tagged for sources for 6 months), I can't possibly justify a keep. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resident Evil.Kww (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect I say a new article with list of all fictional locations in Resident Evil series (Since there are so many). UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As with the recently deleted article on S.T.A.R.S, this appears to be another issue of a split due to WP:SIZE. As is currently under discussion here, I find it distressing that a split for size reasons removes the concept of WP:NNC. -Verdatum (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, three games and two movies make it quite likely that sources exist for this. We have enough awful, unnavigable, logic-free lists of fictional things, no need to add to the pile.--Nydas^(Talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - through film and games, this has become a notable locale, though I think the article, as written contains either a lot of WP:OR, or has needs a great many sources. Redirecting wouldn't necessarily solve that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to a list of locations in Resident Evil or something of the sort, per UzEE. Malinaccier (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Nydas cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the location is the setting of numerous games and films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Asserts no notability, as such size issues or how "important" it is are irrelevant. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any encyclopaedia material here. User:Krator (t c) 01:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly this is just a WP:SIZE issue. Insisting that the article be taken in absolute isolation without the sources and notability provided by the main Resident Evil article is ridiculous and totally counterproductive. Torc2 (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then use the sources in the Resident Evil article, there's no problem with that if they can establish Raccoon City's notability. The article itself can't establish notability for another article, though. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UsaSatsui, I think you have just agreed that it is sourceable. DGG (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it can be sourced. I'm just not sure the proper sources are out there. I think the Resident Evil sources could do it. I'll go Neutral for now, pending a keep when the sources go in. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just did a g search, and found nothing but blogs or sites related to the video game (not independent). LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Resident Evil 2 until someone can write it up with notability. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a reorganized WP:NOT#PLOT summary and a list of elements of that plot. No real-world context or analysis. Doubtful there is any relevant information to be merged that isn't already included elsewhere in the series' articles. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; sourceable notable material.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? This article goes into too much detail for an encyclopedia, and large parts of it are plot repetition better left to the game articles. This might be best if cut down and presented as part of a Universe of Resident Evil article, or something similar. Pagra shtak 16:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing once more the article and the discussion - the result is redirect to [Resident Evil]] although someone can redirect somewhere else if needed.

Looking at WP:FICTION - The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop. The main problem is that it has no reliable sources, virtually unsourced. Merging any content to related articles can be made if needed. --JForget 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arklay Research Facility[edit]

original research plot summary for a fictional location. Ridernyc (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Resident Evil].Kww (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to a list of locations in Resident Evil or something of the sort. Malinaccier (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well presented article concerning a notable location in a major game series. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs references, otherwise is well-written and presented. Images are up to scratch with necessary copyright info and states why it usable. The number of out-of-universe appearances in other media: games, books, movies, etc represent that it is a notable subject with broad appreciation across a number of mediums and that users would be interested in reading more about the setting of the games. The only problem I see here is a lack of citation, which can be remedied by a single user in possession of the games and the time to add the citations. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 00:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notnotable outside the franchise, besides this being a plot rehash from the games. DurinsBane87 (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in the real world, no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is primarily a rehash of the plot of the games, which should be left to the game articles. Pagra shtak 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not follow our WP:WAF guidelines. Unlikely to have any independent, reliable coverage (WP:N). Entirely unreferenced (WP:V). Large chunks of WP:OR. I can't see a workable article being made on this subject. Marasmusine (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a major setting in the video game series, and the film series aswell Empty2005 (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the tour is not confirmed yet as stated in the article, thus violating WP:CRYSTAL --JForget 23:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New World Tour[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL and article clearly states that it hasn't been officially confirmed, making verification by reliable sources impossible. Claims that Gene spoke of a tour are not cited and wouldn't indicate the content and claims of the article anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going to start lobbying for 'crystal ball violation for album or concert tour' as a CSD category.Kww (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystalballing for a start. I'd probably be willing to support such a CSD category but it'd have to be clear and objectively defined. Someone suggested a speedy category for any article that asserts non-notability, in the WP:NFT league, once, and I thought that was interesting. As for this, I'm not even sure we should have articles on individual tours at all, unless they have some real special significance, and when they haven't even happened yet, that means I think they're even less appropriate. Articles about band or artist tours can be merged to the album that they're touring in support of, or to the main artist page, depending on context - I think most such tour articles should be like this. For example, A Bigger Bang Tour is a big article and kinda messy, longer than the album article A Bigger Bang.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care about this Kiss future tour article, but you're wrong to denigrate tour articles in general. To pick your example, the Bigger Bang Tour was the highest-grossing concert tour in history, and was seen by far more people than bought the Bigger Bang album. Groups like the Stones make most of their money from touring now, not releasing records. So the tour article being longer than the album article is quite appropriate. In many cases for veteran artists, the album supports (i.e., gives an excuse for) the tour, not the other way around. And if you look at the earlier Rolling Stones tours, they occurred on a fixed three-year rotation schedule between US, UK, and Europe and were independent of album releases; you couldn't possibly merge those tours into album articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right there - I chose a bad example as that tour is probably more notable than many others. Still there are many less notable tours.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. I don't object to tour articles, but concert tours must have either secondary sources establishing freestanding notability (beyond from the band's notability) or else sufficient sourced, non-WP:CRYSTAL information to justify a spinoff article; otherwise these are WP:FANCRUFT, and in the case of future tours, promotion. New World Tour lacks either, and I doubt evidence is likely to emerge proving this notable beyond "another Kiss tour". / edg ☺ ☭ 19:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 06:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oral health and dental topics[edit]

An alphabetical list - not encyclopaedic. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list was created according to the list guideline, which states "The most basic form of organization is alphabetical". Now, how did you come to the conclusion that alphabetized lists were not encyclopedic? In the future, please read the relevant policies and guidelines before nominating a page for deletion. Thank you. The Transhumanist 05:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category: I think that a structured category would be better than this unsourced list of 837 items. The best lists are structured and referenced, for example, see the the "List of California birds" article. Any unsourced wiki page is a potential target for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This index is very useful for tracking dental coverage on Wikipedia via "Related changes", as well as for monitoring the subject for vandalism and inappropriate edits. (In the category system you'd have to repeat the operation on each subcategory, which is much more cumbersome). The Transhumanist 13:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the only way of watching pages, and it will not find new pages like a category list will. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to compete with categories in order to qualify to exist. Lists and categories are synergistic. WP:CLS states: These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other.

Snowman, please explain how your actions and arguments are not in direct contradiction to WP:CLS. The Transhumanist 19:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I found this mixed list of 837 linked pages of dental health related topics and biographies, it was uncategorised, it had no stub tag, it did not have any links from article pages, it had no references. I found it because I was checking links going to a page, perhaps one of the pages on the list that I had started. It was invisible to most wiki users, who might have wanted to see the page or watch changes of the linked pages. It can be deleted merely because it still does not have any references. I saw grounds for it to be deleted, and perhaps I should have given more than one reason for deletion at the outset. I note that the page has been amended, and, if it had references (perhaps listing of 2 or 3 dental and oral health text books in a reference section), this problem will have been partly addressed. WP:CLS does accept lists, although it favours structured lists, and I do not want to compete over list formats, but a page without references is not defensible on the wiki. "List of California birds" is a featured list, and it has references and subheadings. (Wikipedia:Lists#List content). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with category This seems exactly what a category is for. Pharmboy (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists may serve the same purpose as categories (navigation), and shouldn't be dismantled in favor of categories. This is covered in the guideline WP:CLS, which states: When developers of these redundant systems compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted simply because they overlap, they are doing Wikipedia a disservice. First, editors defend their systems of choice vigorously, so forcing confrontations between them in deletion discussions wastes the time and effort of contributors who would be better utilized by allowing them to develop their respective systems. Second, these pages often have links that their counterparts do not have - simply deleting such pages wastes those links. Third, deleting list pages just because they are redundant to categories may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system - this is a form of instability. Fourth, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list -- deleting link lists is a pointless waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. The Transhumanist 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any unreferenced list is a target for deletion; see Wikipedia:Lists#List content. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pharmboy. GregorB (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. GregorB (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest, how is a page merged with a category, two different sorts of pages. Snowman (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By tagging each of the pages linked to on the list with category tags. See Wikipedia:Category. I think you should become more familiar with Wikipedia's operations and policies and guidelines before nominating any more articles for deletion. The Transhumanist 06:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know about categories and so I think that you are being too presumptive. I would have called that converted to a Category and not merging with a category, especially as there is no category called "Category:Oral health and dental topics" or "Category:Oral Health" at the present time to merge it with, and the list itself is not categorised. A category could be more structured that this mixed unsourced list of 837 items. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being presumptive. Your question displayed a lack of familiarity with a basic operation. And whether or not a category can be more structured, isn't a good reason for deletion according to WP:CLS, which you also seem to be unfamiliar with (otherwise you wouldn't be posing a category against a list), and which you continually fail to address. Concerning structure, it's much faster to read this list than to browse all these topics in the category system, and for people desiring to survey the whole subject this list is therefore more valuable to them for that purpose. Lists are useful in ways that categories are not. Which is one reason that WP:CLS states that one should not be deleted in favor of the other. Note also that categories aren't sourced either, and in practice index pages on Wikipedia generally aren't challenged for not being sourced, because includability is either obvious or easily verified by clicking on and reading an entry. It's common sense for a navigation aid like this. The Transhumanist 15:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I know about categories. I have worked on categories. I have made new categories. I have added to categories. I know about lists. I have worked on lists. I have added to lists. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you initiating a category vs. list conflict? All the reasons why categories and lists should not be used as the basis for getting rid of their counterparts are covered in WP:CLS. The reason you initially gave for the nom was "An alphabetical list - not encyclopaedic". Alphabetized lists are defined as encyclopedic in WP:STAND. This suggests that you haven't read Wikipedia's guidelines concerning lists. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether or not pages should be deleted according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The reason you gave in your nom, and most of the arguments you've presented above either directly contradict or ignore Wikipedia's guidelines on lists. This AfD discussion should never have been started in the first place. The Transhumanist 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is an older method of Wikipedia organization that still has thousands of articles. I can see an argument that they are obsolete or that they should be better organized, but these "list of X topics" articles have some longstanding precedent. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, they aren't obsolete, on the contrary, lists are superior to categories in many ways, which is covered in WP:CLS; they can even be developed to featured status, unlike categories. The list system is under continuous further development. For more information, see WP:LISTS and Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). The Transhumanist 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the list has not got one reference, and to talk of a featured status is rather theoretical at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination and reasons given above for removing the list go completely against Wikipedia's list-related guidelines. See WP:CLS. The Transhumanist 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any unreferenced text is a target for deletion, and this specifically applies to lists as well; see Wikipedia:Lists#List content. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that applies to 95% of pages on Wikipedia, which begs the question "why target a list that is primarily a navigation aid?" If any entry on the list is in error, please feel free to remove it. But, you're nomination didn't present that as a reason, and most of the rest of your arguments are of the category vs. list type, which suggests that you have a bias for categories and against lists that share the purpose of categories (navigation). Tables of contents and indexes are one of Wikipedia's main navigation systems. Please stop trying to dismantle it. There are many indexes on Wikipedia, and none of them are sourced. See List of mathematics articles, List of economics topics, List of geography topics, List of biology topics, List of ecology topics, List of anatomical topics, List of topics in logic, List of trigonometry topics, List of statistical topics, List of psychology topics, List of politics topics, List of legal topics, List of education topics, to name a few. There are dozens, possibly hundreds more. They are all navigation aids. Are you going to nominate those for deletion too? The Transhumanist 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see wp:WAX in the "Arguments to avoid" essay. Pharmboy (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presented those links to show the common practice as applied to index pages. And common practice is relevant here, as the underlying issue is whether or not the list-based navigation system should be dismantled, either all-at-once or one-page-at-a-time. If it's going to be deleted, then there's no sense in working on it or expanding it. The Transhumanist 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize. Per above. Malinaccier (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep and Merge with Category. After re-reading WP:CLS, I see that both the article and category can be used together to a better effect than keeping only one of them. Thanks TTH. Malinaccier (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge per WP:CLS Guidelines explicitly state the difference between CATs and Lists. --Shark face 217 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLS and thanks to User:The Transhumanist for his guidance. 62.244.185.135 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to be harsh, but this AFD is turning into an essay by The Transhumanist. I think we know how you feel about this article you created at this point. Pharmboy (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - :) My feelings are irrelevant. It's the reasons that matter. Are the points I presented relevant and valid? If not, please show how they are not.The Transhumanist 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have a horse in the race, but I do read WP:CLS a bit differently than you, as do others. This is ok. My concern is that you are taking this personally and claiming ownership of the article. Over 50% of the commenting in this AFD is yours, flooding out other opinions. Debate every single point of everyone who disagrees with you seems inappropriate in an AFD: State your case, quote your policy and reply to one or two comments, fine. My concern isn't about this page, it is about the methods being used, to bludgen the AFD itself with the shear volume of "words". As to the flaws in your logic, I have already pointed out wp:wax and others apply, but pointing them out will only generate several paragraphs of monolog and isn't conducive to resolving the issue at hand. In short, I think your methods are undermining the AFD process. I accept you are doing this in good faith, but it isn't good practice. Pharmboy (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're changing the subject via ad hominem, and that's inappropriate. Concerning article ownership, you should assume good faith, refrain from reading things in to another's actions, and practice good sportsmanship. My record shows that I gladly collaborate with others on articles -- I even go out of my way to invite others to help, posting requests for help on various WikiProjects and request boards. While I don't take this debate personally, I do consider it important -- a great deal of list development effort has been wasted by good lists being deleted, and anything I can do to reduce that I do gladly. I believe that presenting the relevant facts and considerations allows others to weigh the evidence and reasons to make a better decision. The reasons posted here may become the basis for an essay, to reduce the need for repeating them in the future. Concerning the facts and reasons, there is no quota on who these should come from -- but they need to be presented by someone. And the logic works, even it runs counter to the essays you have presented to support your position. I'm sorry that the outcome isn't going your way, but attempting to quiet the opposition is a dubious approach. The Transhumanist 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. While the selection of "topics" still appears a bit haphazard, with biographies thrown in - hey, let's give WP:CLS a chance. However: the article's formatting has since changed. With this formatting, it's not going to be enhanced to anything more than a collection of links - which could also be fine, but I don't see the need to keep it. GregorB (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (withdrawn)[reply]
- Converting back and forth from the bulleted format only takes a minute or two, so enhancement in various ways is always an option. Speaking of enhancements, the list currently contains one section-link, and will likely have more added over time. Concerning need, I set up the list to be able to access all dental pages from a single place, for ease of browsing/studying the subject and to make working on them easier. As I work on those articles, I'll be sure to refine this list. The Transhumanist 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in that case. Good enough for me. GregorB (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Material is already at Initial D, so merging isn't necessary.Cúchullain ^t/c 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial D First Stage[edit]

Initial D Second Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Initial D Third Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Initial D Fourth Stage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Duplicate of section at Initial D. If this needs to be split (which it doesn't, it should be dealt with at the article page first. If deciding to keep one version or another, the main article section is both more accurate and less original research Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional articles that follow the exact same format of redundancy. Akin to having "Show x Season 1" "Show x Season 2" etc.... --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Normally I'd say merge into Initial D, but as all the content is already there, its irrelevent. As they contain nothing more than plot summaries, there is no need for seperate articles. Tx17777 (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all of the articles are just plot summary, which goes against WP:NOT#PLOT. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus appears quite clear. Wizardman 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La violetera / Le torrent / Gitane / Fado[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/La violetera / Le torrent / Gitane / Fado

Single that shows no reason to deserve its own article, fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 02:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article may contain sufficient notability per the singer Dalida. Mh29255 (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but what I'm saying is that as it stands the article does not contain sufficient notability. I'm without prejudice to recreation should it be deemed acceptable in the future. Wizardman 05:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the same reasons.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a top ten hit on a national singles chart. Is that in question? Rigadoun (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 15:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madona / Mon coeur va / Flamenco bleu / Guitare flamenco[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Madona / Mon coeur va / Flamenco bleu / Guitare flamenco

Single that shows no reason to deserve its own article, fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. that there is no evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS. Unlikely search term so no need for redirect. JJL (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is in the same shape as the other two with the same notability. If the other two are kept this one may as well be. Wizardman 00:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited; just because the other song was a hit doesn't mean this one should get an article because it was by the same artist. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 23:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This apparently was not a hit (or not a big one, anyway, according to the article), but the debut single by an artist that had many huge hits afterwards...the others are more clear-cut because they were substantial hits, but as a debut single, and the first volume of a series that included many notable releases. I'd say some of the criteria for albums apply here, because it seems that these releases were larger sellers than the albums, and may rightfully deserve the "inherited notability" that applies for albums. Rigadoun (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, consensus is that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Bernerström[edit]

Non-notable bio - no reliable sources. The one source listed mentions Bernerström once on page 10 of 12. Cross-dressing to go to war is not notable by itself.

Re-Nom - last one was, as stated, a train wreck. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes no sense. How can you say there are no reliable sources when in your next sentence you admit that she's noted in an article? You assert that women who dressed as men to fight in wars are not notable but quote no wikipedia policy or other evidence to substantiate that claim. The sheer number of books, articles and press material on the phenomena would tend to indicate you are wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hold up there, Nick! First, just because there's a reference doesn't mean it's a reliable source. Second, I never said that "women who dressed as men to fight in wars are not notable". I said that doing that isn't notable by itself. I agree totally that the "phenomena" is interesting and notable - but that doesn't mean everyone who does it is notable. Not everyone who climbs Mt. Everest is notable just because they did it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In that I believe the category is notable, hence the individuals involved are notable. However, I could understand why SatyrTN (talk / contribs). Nominated for Afd. Very little material and what there is, is in Swedish. I see no bad faith nomination here. Shoessss | Chat 14:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:V requires multiple reliable sources, not just the one cite. I don't know about a "sheer number" of books, articles and press material, but of the just 41 hits I find on the Swedish Google [15], almost all of them are this article and various Wiki mirrors. RGTraynor 16:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's awfully hard to get any information about female soldiers in history; for some reason history books tended to gloss over such embarrasments. So anything that has survived a couple of centuries is worth keeping. Re sources, the pdf file referenced by the article isn't clear about which information it's taken from there, but it does list a decent bibliography so I think it's reasonable to assume that there's at least one other source for the information about Elisa Bernerström, even if it is in Swedish and in print. --Zeborah (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this passes any reasonable interpretation of WP:BIO, unless someone turns up verified offline citations. As stated in the nom, simply being a female crossdresser in wartime is not notable. All we have are about three lines of information about her, and what it documents is interesting, but not by itself notable. Mind you, if there were a stronger assertion of notability in the original text I'd give this more consideration.--Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons as Dhartung. This just doesn't seem notable enough. Women have served in many wars, we don't make a page for each of them. If additional notable information is uncovered, I'd be willing to switch to Neutral. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57[reply]
Note Someone has just added a line to the article asserting notability in that "She is one of two confirmed women to have been decorated for bravery in battle in Sweden before the 1900s." I don't know the source of the "two confirmed women" part, but even if this phrasing were deleted, the original source does say she was decorated for bravery in battle ("Med anledning av detta tilldelades hon medaljen för tapperhet i fält.") Certainly many women have fought in wartime but few indeed, particularly in such an era, have been decorated for it, and this seems a reasonable fact on which to base notability: see WP:BIO "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." --Zeborah (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep I believe the added sentence about being one of 2 confirmed women before 1900s to be decorated clearly establishes notability. The only problem is that comment isn't exactly sourced. I personally am willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but I can't ignore that the article is still shy of wikipedia standards. A little more work towards sourcing and I'd definitely support a keep.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just clarified the references in the article and done "a little more work towards sourcing" - just with no conclusive results. <wry smile> I think there'd be more information in the Warnstedt article on medals, in Släkthistoriskt Forum, but this magazine isn't held in any libraries in my country and the author is dead. I can email the author of the Kvinnorna och Kriget paper, in the hope that he understands English (my Swedish is hopeless) and can give more information; otherwise I can see if I know anyone who can get hold of the Warnstedt article for me; otherwise I can request it as an interlibrary loan. But most likely this will take longer than the AfD process typically allows. --Zeborah (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update Have just had an email from the author, who's provided two more references. One is a book (not being able to get a copy easily myself I've listed it on the talk page), the other a website which I've added to the article itself. It doesn't mention Elisa by name but calls her "fru Servenius" (Mrs Servenius) and "hustrun" (the wife) and generally corroborates the story. --Zeborah (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more sources can be provided. The article certainly makes a claim to notability (being one of two Swedish women to be decorated in battle before the 20th century), but it really needs more sources to show it. Can anyone from the Swedish Wikipedia help with this one? Terraxos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the decoration, particularly for a woman in these circumstances, is in itself notable. As for sources, given the language and lack of currency of the issue it's not surprising that grubbing the Internet hasn't turned up much. But a historical figure who appears in a 12-page gloss (a "tertiary source") has other primary/secondary sources supporting; these need to be adduced, certainly. --Lquilter (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be notable, but as for sources - Wikipedia:There is no deadline. I agree with Lquilter's point above. --Solumeiras ^talk 22:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Lquilter. Edward321 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the sources seem adequate enough for an article.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Benjiboi 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rt . 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be sufficiently unique to be notable and is sourced adequately - Dumelow (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Strayer University. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strayer Education[edit]

Non-notable coporation. Just having a stock ticker tag does not make a corporation notable, just owning a for-profit school does not make a holding company notable. My speedy tag was removed without an explanation. Corvus cornix_talk 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Strayer University seems the clearest choice here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I agree with Andrew, the article could be seamlessly merged with Strayer University. Information is pertnient but not enough to warrant an entire article. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per both Andrew and Plm209. Not notable enough for its own article, but Strayer University is. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a very logical option. A sentence in the Strayer University article would quite suffice. --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 13:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nothing to merge (already mentioned in article) but potentially useful search term anyway. Fram (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Poohs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Several Monty Python sketches

Articles for deletion/Conrad Poohs (2nd nomination)

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was previously involved in a train wreck AFD which yielded no consensus. Now found in the PROD workstream; PROD nominator states "fails WP:EPISODE guidelines as there are no reliable sources to prove it's individual notability. Also fails WP:PLOT". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Monty Python has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with Monty Python's Flying Circus. --Pmedema (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No individual notability, had links to copyright violations (which I have since deleted).Kww (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Speaking as a huge fan of this sketch, the lack of established notability is pretty blatent. I have no reason to believe that independent sources establishing notability per WP:FICT exist. -Verdatum (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus as lacking independent notability. What a freaky looking face though...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT and has no assertion of notability at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRATT[edit]

Tagged as non-notable for months now; pretty sure this isn't notable enough for wikipedia's guidelines. Kuronue | Talk 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and has no clear WP:RS to verify. All the sources listed are simply examples of discussions that the author descripes as PRATT. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 18:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Examples suggest POVFORK. RJC ^Talk 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research lacking reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the term PRATT is, from what I can tell by a quick Googling, a notable acronym and could be referenced, it does not meet the requirements of WP:NOT as it is not a type of acronym, it is simply one single acronym.
--74.67.243.173 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)User:Psyphi[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that it does not meet WP:WEB.--Kubigula (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magatopia[edit]

Non-notable website. Listing here rather than CSD as it has been around for quite a few months. StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What in the name of Nintendo is Magatopia? ... Exactly. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only minimal Google News Archive results, many of which are duplicates, and nothing really substantial in terms of coverage to assert notability. I don't think it meets WP:WEB. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's nothing to stop the CSD from applying on a page that's been around a long time.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I consider it more a matter of respect when there has been more than one editor and the page has some history to it. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References have been added to the article. References in published sources shows good notability. User:Psyphi —Preceding comment was added at 08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, just because the site showed up in a few indexes (which cover thousands of sites) does not make it notable. StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 references, possible hoax. Cúchullain ^t/c 03:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cisco[edit]

Delete - I left a message with the creater of the new page to give a chance to reference and clean-up the article. Another editor also had left a message with the creater pretty much saying the same thing about the article. The article is completely unreferenced and all my searchs don't come up with anything other then this article, blogs and unreliable sources. I really suspect it is a hoax. If I'm wrong about it being a hoax then, WP:N and WP:RS are not achieved. Pmedema (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Do not Delete" -The reason this article was writtten is because of the lack of notable information this artist. After the preceeding comment, I decided to try searches as well. First yahoo, "bill cisco drifters": number 1 results = (www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/070202/met_9812780.html) :#2 result = (blog.nola.com/times-picayune/.../edwards_visits_no_to_begin_pov.html). Second search googles: no.2 result = www.drifters4u.co.cc/ . Third search dogpile.com: refers to the same drifter4u.co.cc page. 4th search www.altavista.com = #1 & #2 results refers to the subject in question. 5th search search.com = 4 acticles about Bill Cisco and Drifters excluding wiki page. I agree, the article needs help in the reference department and revisions to clean -up the article are in process, but to disregard it as a hoax. The search results from those first five searches I just performed clearly suggest that this article isn't a hoax. Help me to correctly retify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siseko (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - certainly claims to notability here, but verifying them could be problematic.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Drifters has no mention of him.

The official web site [16] has no mention of him. The original drifters website [17] has no mention of him. The Drifters with Rick Sheppard [18] has no mention of him. The history of rock [19] has no mention of him. The motown sites [20] and new Motown [21] has no mention of him. Where is the WP:N or WP:V--Pmedema (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to find expert advise I sent an email to the original drifters where Bill Cisco would have been part of. I received the following email back.

Dear Pmedema,

From time to time, we have received inquires about this man, but we have absolutely no idea who he is. He certainly made no contribution to The Drifters legacy (1953 - 1964), and we would appreciate your not giving him credibility by including him in your listings.

Best wishes,

Maxine Porter, President

       Original Drifters, Inc.
         P. O. Box 371371
      Las Vegas, NV 89137
            702-642-2300
   www.OriginalDrifters.com
Bill Pinkney's Original Drifters 
       The Legacy Continues

I don't know what else to say. --Pmedema (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Highbeam search of "Bill Cisco" and "Bill Cisco Drifters" came up with nothing to convince me this article is not a hoax.OneHappyHusky (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. A redirect may be set editorially if desired. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Next Door Sector V[edit]

DeleteShould be deleted and the characters given their own articles since all the kids in Sector V do play very important roles and the series revolves around all of them.Mcelite (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)mcelite[reply]

List of main characters which is duplicating info contained in the parent article. Possibly a better candidate for a merge and redirect over a deletion. treelo _talk 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like you said, most of this "information" is included in the main article. It would be pointless merging because there would be duplicate information. Tavix (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect If you were to address the guesses and suppositions of this article, you'd end up with pretty much nothing which isn't already contained in Codename: Kids Next Door. Yng varr 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge/redirect many, many Kids Next Door AFDs here lately. Per nom, although content is likely already covered elsewhere. Pharmboy (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per Ballioni's suggestion. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Do not redirect; not a reasonable search term. The only reason one would bother to type "Kids Next Door Sector V" rather than simply "Kids Next Door" is that s/he expects to find a separate article and not just look at the main article on the series. If we were discussing "Nigel Uno" or the like the search would be reasonable, but not things that start with "Kids Next Door" and add extra words. Jay32183 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 by Resolute. Tevildo (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Harry Potter beasts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

~~Article topic already covered by Magical creatures (Harry Potter). Page is not necessary, nor is redirect that would be left in a merge as this is not a likely search term~~. See below --CastAStone /^/(talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete seems this one was already taken care of in September. Ridernyc (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Should have checked, its recreated material, whoops.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 17:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furry TG art[edit]

This appears to an internet meme related to Furry people, and does not appear to be independently notable per coverage and reliable sources. Appears to be part of some sort of walled off garden of articles related to this subculture. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't really think there's anything here worth merging into Furry fandom, and it's not really a significant element of furry art in the first place - and I've never heard it called "TG art", incidentally. Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't part of the garden, this is one of those strange tomacco bushes that you get when someone who doesn't know what they're doing starts mixing seeds and radioactive materials. GreenReaper (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Who to the what now? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having no notability outwith the furry fandom. GreenReaper thinks it's non-notable in the real world, and I hope he'd know.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfox[edit]

Appears to be a fictional topic for a subculture. No assertation of notability, no sourcing, and I'm having trouble finding any evidence of notability online. Possible hoax? Either way, it probably doesn't belong in Wikipedia at this time. Lawrence Cohen 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some people do roleplay as these (as well as an infinite number of other possible hybrids), it doesn't live up to the cultural notability of the Jackalope or even the Cabbit. Doubt we'd ever find reliable sources ether. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We lost Chakat years ago, and this is a _far_ less significant furry-specific species. Tevildo (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the notability guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would probably even be deleted on WikiFur, it doesn't really say anything beyond what you'd guess from the word itself. GreenReaper (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or A1 Speedy it. Although I'm none too sure it has NO context, it surely has little enough to be a candidate for either of the two. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, delete as minimal interest outside the fandom. ('sides, I thought they were folfs.) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced, lacking real world notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The last vestiges of the chakat article survived in a broader topic that wound up having historical significance. No such luck here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarra[edit]

Procedural nomination. Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the article regarding the organisation Sarra works for should be expanded. Alloranleon (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Writing a report for a worthy organization does not satisfy the requirements for individual notability. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the organisation, no apparent independent notability here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Sarra has been covered in a couple secondary sources, but she was never really the focus and a redirect to the ICMEC is probably called for. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rather than redirect -- Ms. Sarra may not always be associated with this organization. --Lockley (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep --JForget 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election[edit]

At first, I thought this page just looked odd with entries such as NASCAR-style points. Then I checked the references. More than a few are linked to political campaigns or personal/political blogs. One to the Charlotte Conservative looks like it might be a news paper, but it is nothing but a rather one sided local blog. I don't see these references as being independent at all, though the article purports to be. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, all the guidelines of WP:LIST are followed. The blogs just show the information for the results of a straw poll. User:John J. Bulten makes 100% sure the results are valid before adding them. The sources are independent because no "campaign" website is ever used. Once the election is over this may be an FL. --S TX 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The author of this article obviously put a lot of time into it, and I find the topic to be fascinating. However, as intriguing as the subject can be, it's not encyclopedic in its current form. Some of the data could possibly be added to Straw Poll, but there we run the risk of adding systemic bias by focusing the article on US politics to the almost total exclusion of other regions... which would mean splitting the article, which is what we have now. I don't know how this article can be kept, as I agree that the sources are less than stellar - particularly in that blogs generally aren't reliable sources. If the blogs cite news coverage or other sources for their data, then we can use those sources. Additional sourcing, or a focus on the straw poll's place in measuring sentiment regarding a presidential election might be better than a simple results page, which this appears to be. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to clarify, my concern is not the NPOV of the article, it is the nonNOPV of the references. There are a few NPOV references from msnbc (for example), but a lot of the information, as presented, would need to get deleted in the absence of neutral, independent sources. At that point, I am not sure there is much left. Further, there are some sections of this article that appear WP:OR, based on inventing systems of ranking candidates based on polling. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom's complaint seems more related to NPOV violation than meeting the criteria for deletion. Topic itself seems to meet criteria for notability, verifiability. Proper remedy is to improve the article. RJC ^Talk 18:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep straw polls are an important part of the American presidential nominating process and as such this article is most certainly notable,and therefore warants inclussion; it could use some cleanup however. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely a notable topic and a key part of the US presidential campaign system. My only concern, which is perhaps a rewording of the nom's, is that not every straw poll seems to have its notability proven. (They tend to receive inconsistent coverage, especially since some states' polls are vitally important and others are practically irrelevant.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it is interesting to see all these straw poll results in one place, the fact is that the vast majority of these straw polls were themselves non-notable and received minimal, if any, news coverage, since they reflect unscientific local samples of the electorate. (For example, the poll used to determine the current Republican leader in Iowa is not the nationally noted Ames straw poll with over 10,000 participants, but a high school straw poll with fewer than 100 participants.) In addition, the analysis of these straw polls (by showing maps of which candidate won the most recent straw poll in each state, Olympic-style results, Nascar-style results, win-place-show results, etc.) is basically original research and not truly meaningful. I would recommend that the supporters of this article take it out of Wikipedia and post the compilation of results at the Campaigns Wikia instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. These are reasons why this is a bad article and should be improved, but do not touch upon the criteria for deletion. RJC ^Talk 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While your point on using the Ames straw poll is valid, I just thought it funny that the Ames poll turned out wrong, while the article pick turned out correct. --Crimson30 (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is filled with unreliable information and opinion, with spammy links. The entire mess appears to be a coat rack for Ron Paul's campaign. This is the sort of "informational list" that gives WP a bad reputation as inaccurate. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that's not exactly true. Ron Paul has done well on straw polls and this article reflects that. The information is reliable and not spam but just links to the sources. Deleting this article would be a huge mistake since there is an abundance of historical interest in it. The list right now is in its preliminary stages (as all election articles are) but I promise you after the election it will be an FL. Give it a chance.--S TX 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, I think this page has alot of merit, possibly split to two pages 1. DEM, 2. REP.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the individual straw polls in the article do not need to be individually notable; per WP:N, the subject of the article (2008 straw polls) need to be notable, but the threshold of notability does not limit what is included in the article. This is why we have, for example, Christian Heritage Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election filled with non-notable people. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it's inaccurate, fix it. This is poised to be the most interesting presidential primary race since 1928 and you want to delete verifiable information about it? - McCart42 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Straw polls in an election year are pretty notable. The information is verifiable and the article meets the requirements of WP:LIST. Pilotbob (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Election Update, the article's results for the straws polls just accurately predicted the winner of the Wyoming Caucus (Mitt Romney). --STX 21:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - With due respect, this is not about the power of the polls to accurately or inaccurately predict outcomes. I don't think that makes the article any more or less notable or verifiable. I should not be able to list a bunch of my personal predictions in an article, and then after the fact claim the article should have been kept "because my predictions were true". LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response, This isn't a personal prediction this is the results of real, verified straw polls. This was a ridiculous thing to bring to AFD. Save everybody's time and withdraw.--S TX 22:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not fewer than 13 of the sources referenced in this article are from blogs conducting original research, or from party candidatate websites that cited no sources to confirm the validity of the polls. Maybe poll articles have different standards of verifiability, but I don't see how they do. I frankly care not if the sources are from Obama, Huckabee, Clinton, or Paul. If the information is not verifiable from a neutral source, then it doesn't belong. I am also starting to wonder if the inclusion of information could ever be complete, and as such, is the information here selective toward one candidate/party? Polls by their nature will generally tilt toward one candidate or party. I have no problem with that. My problem is in the verifiability of the outcomes. There are a lot of sources that are very clearly not neutral and have much to gain by "spinning" (as one site put it) results one way or the other.

talk below tries to make a claim that this article should exist because similar articles exist, and we know that is not an argument to be made here (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is your post a deletion argument. There are probably 150 sources, so go to article talk and propose standards for which should be included. I am also aware of a number of polls which never had any balanced results reported on the net at all, and have not included them. This article for many moons has adopted the reasonable standard for inclusion that a neutral report of results is acceptable, if full enough to tabulate totals. If you'd like to change that standard, AFD is not the place. No attempt is made at complete reporting, only reporting of what data meets a reasonable inclusion standard. In everything reported on WP, there is zero range for any spin that may accompany it in source reporting. We're reporting numbers here! Finally, my (first) argument is not an other-stuff argument. It is an argument that accurate data pertaining to an important election, including events both notable and nonnotable in themselves, is perfectly encyclopedic. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must again politely agree. I did conduct searches and could not find any article to establish the notability, beyond those published by respective party/candidate websites, which I cannot regard as being independent. The differing methods being used to tally the straw polls give ever indication of original research, given that they are based on non-independent references. I appear to be in the minority, but I stand by my feeling that this does not constitute independently verifibale encyclopedic information that is of permanent interest. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep on same grounds as the five opinion poll articles. Did anyone find any inaccurate data among the various sources (which are necessary due to nature of this article)? The topic is notable, and it is not necessary that each list item itself be notable (echoing Sarcasticidealist). Is there any reason to favor the NASCAR method of ranking, or not to favor it? Discussion has been available on the talk page for months. Would someone prefer the map be changed from most recent poll to largest poll? Or include both? I'm wide open for those approaches, as long as it's consistent, as my and Southern Texas's comments about the map have made clear. Is someone proposing that neutral coverage of all straw polls is a soapbox or coatrack for Paul? That's like saying that neutral coverage of opinion polls is a soapbox or coatrack for Clinton, or whoever's leading; and neutral coverage of the 2004 election is a soapbox for Bush and unfair to Kerry. C'mon. Fact is, there have been a half-dozen items for deletion lately on the grounds that neutral coverage of items that may happen to demonstrate a Paul strength must be outright deleted rather than discussed. Is WP about supporting status quo among senior editors, or about improvement? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. It would have been appropriate to notify me of the AFD on my talk page in timely fashion. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article performs a valuable public service in demonstrating how meaningless straw polls are. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tijuana Brass (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Derricott[edit]

No evidence of notability. Reference provides no substantial information. Rtphokie (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hopefully the following information will be useful in making a determination:

He's well known enough as a gaijin tarento that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Gaijin tarento taskforce has his name on their frontpage of people who's articles need expanded/fixed
He's well know in Japan that when the Japan Today asked random Japanese on the streets what they thought of gaijin, his name came up.[22]
While not generally well covered in the US, the Deseret News in Utah (his home state) does articles on him periodically, which include the following: [23] [24]
The Center for Japanese Studies of the University of Michigan has had him as a guest lecturer, and describes him here: [25]
In preparing for the 2002 Olympics in SLC, the State of Utah discovered that the most mentioned association that Japanese have with Utah is Kent Derricott (as found at [26] on page 7)

-- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely well known in Japan some years ago. Very visible "talent" who appeared as a guest on myriad television shows, and was on commercials. One of the "two Kents." Fg2 (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but this article makes no claim to notability other than being a "personality". If someone familiar with the subject can add in some content demonstrating why he is notable, along with an accompanying citation or two, then things will be fine. But as it stands, this article should be deleted; it's practically CSD A1. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more information available in the Japanese version of the article, but it would need translation by someone who's Japanese is better than mine. Does it make sense to delete this stub at this point when there is an almost certainty that the article will be expanded to notability criteria? It's not that the subject is not notable, it's just that the article only has 2 sentences, as so is naturally missing the information necessary to substantiate this. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A very well-known gaikokujin tarento in Japan. --Saintjust (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know it can't be used, but I was constantly asked if I knew Derricott when I was in Japan because I've lived in Utah. Everyone over there knows who he is, and I'm not exaggerating when I say everyone. I guess the 2002 Olympic study mentioned above bears this out. I added that as a reference to notability in the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Nihonjoe and 208.81.184.4 demonstrate notability of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All right... so here we've got four people who've provided good reasons to keep this article, which I applaud, but the actual article has only changed by one sentence. Y'all, if you feel strongly about this article, it's far more helpful to edit it rather than merely post up keep reasons on an AfD. I understand that the Japanese article is difficult to translate, but there's material right here that could well be added. Speaking as an admin who closes AfDs from time to time, it's frustrating to see plenty of good keep reasons given but little to no effort made to actually improve an article by people who are knowledgeable on the subject. Personally, when I close, seeing efforts made to correct AfD-related issues are far more convincing to me than the opinions given in the AfD itself. So, please please pleasepleaseplease somebody put some of this familiarity with the subject to good use and expand the article itself.

...all right, done ranting. Just needed to vent about a common problem admins face when closing AfDs like this. There's such promising potential here that isn't being used. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem though is that sometimes the article then gets deleted anyway, and you've done all that work for nothing. I suspect enough people have been burned by that to hold off until the deal is done. And then, alas, it drops off the plate. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article a bit more with the information in those articles. I don't want to do it too much more, though, as any more might lead to plagiarism. I've hit the hilights, though. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that there's not obviously much to say about people who routinely jabber(ed) away about supremely ephemeral matters on low-budget television waidoshō and the like. Yes, you can list his appearances: in some ways, "talking heads" on Japanese TV are oddly similar to the bodies in Japanese "adult video". As I vaguely and perhaps wrongly recall, Derricott jabbered faster than and was less repellently unctious than Gilbert, and he had improbably dyed/blow-waved hair. When the TV antenna fell off the building over a decade ago, I never replaced it and I've never missed TV since. -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to note is that Japanese pop-culture is no less (and arguably, even more) pervasive than US-ian pop culture; however, the number of editors who can dig up WP:RS on a few days notice is remarkably small, compared to the English language counterparts. Adding personal observations in the midst of an ongoing AFD is even more likely to get reverted out due to the fact that "I remember seeing it on TV" is not up to snuff as a WP:RS. Whereas millions of WP contributors watch programs such as Heroes or Lost, and the subsequent additions to the assorted character articles each week are rarely challenged, the same cannot be said for Japanese (or German, or Italian, or ....) subjects. The few of us who are actually familiar (for better or worse) with the everyday ramblings of the tarento know that the blatantly talentless bikini kankei nee guy is notable in Japan, and probably gets more airtime than Richard Hatch could ever dream of; but, that didn't prevent a recent AFD on his article. Derricott is no different in that regard -- people familiar with Japanese TV inherently know that he is notable; but, familiarity with the topic is often enough not a barrier to editing an article or expressing ones dissatisfaction that the topic is unnotable. Enough of my rambling... Neier (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if nothing else, the multiple books published by major publishers (or imprints of major publishers) qualify him as notable. He has also multiple video releases (where he is the star, either alone or with his family, such as ケント・デリカットのLet’s　Familing！(レッツ・ファミリング！)). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's familing? Holy shit. Let's not: let's kiosk for some prophylactics. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable in Japan. Neier (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any native speaker of English who stars in a video titled "Let's Familing" merits ~~waterboarding~~ an article. -- Hoary (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. That has to be the best notability argument I've seen. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheffield Sharks Ski Club[edit]

Unaddressed notability issues Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Would be a very good idea to merge this in with Sheffield Ski Village (Which is a small article in itself) as the club meets there. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - seems the best solution. --Bduke (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merged Jfire (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dlohcierekim as nonsense, not notable, and was previously deleted once before as nonsense/hoax. Dloh cierekim 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Sanchez[edit]

Patent nonsense. No evidence whatsoever that any of this genuine. Marked unreferenced for three months with no sources being provided. ShelfSkewed Talk 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Canuck85 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a WP:HOAX. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing verifiability and the notability standard for biographies. Sounds totally hoaxalicious. Edison (talk) 15:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginally amusing; just might elicit a pitying grunt from a brick wall. That said, delete. :) Alloranleon (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a hint of notability. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Complete nonsense. Just some kids messing around. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This wasn't speedy? WP:HOAX LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a recreation of an article that was previously deleted (as hoax) and is substantially similar (I think). Pharmboy (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid. JuJube (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete as hoax per everyone else above. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HOAX. Macy's 123 review me 23:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G1 nonsense. I've tagged it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind for a minute after noting that the "G in the HOOD" stuff was a result of vandalism, but it's still nonsensical and a hoax.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Club Peugeot UK[edit]

Does not meet notability guidelines, not to mention nothing has been addressed since May 2007. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:ORG says: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." - this is a national organisation - the only issue is whether there is verifiable sources that they are a national organisation. As the article says, the club has official support from the Peugeot UK company - so there is no doubt that they are sufficiently notable. The problem here is only that this notability has not been backed up by a reference within the article. IMHO, we should add a {{fact}} tag - not delete the article for want of a single reference. SteveBaker (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As above, plus I have know of the club. Willirennen (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My reason for removing my nomination is, I had been thinking, if this was to be kept, will this be an invitation for all national clubs to have their own articles here and will this mean I will be entitled to create an article of any national car club, no matter how small they are, also personally, I don't think internet clubs are entitled to have an article here as they are not really clubs, they are simply forums, also those with their own racing series recognised by a national motorsport governing body can have an article here (AMOC), also long established clubs and large sized clubs that is big enough to run as an independent business can be entitled. Willirennen (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Steve, seriousness here please. Every Peugeot dealer accross the British Isles and beyond has official support from the company. This might set a club apart from other enthusiast organizations, but doesn't assert notability. There are no reliable external sources asserting the club's notability - repeated references in press beyond "243857th diannual gathering of owners of Pug 205s and vehicles resembling them" would be, but the article doesn't provide any. If the press would go like "The Club Peugeot UK, widely regarded as..." or run long reports on the club (a long article just MENTIONING the club doesn't count), I would say it is notable. Regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this appears to be a national club in the UK for Peugot enthusiasts. This appears to have adequatate notability. The particle is a poor one, but that is a reason for improving it not deleting it. If this were the X-town Peugot Club, my view would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please acquaint yourself with WP:ORG to find out what contitutes notability in the Wikipedia sense. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To quote Steve (but adding my own bold text) "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization." Meets the first, fails the second. My own owners' club is international in scale (it covers the UK, Australia and NZ), and has been covered in external sources (i.e. enthusiast mags have mentioned us). We also have official manufacturer approval—but all that took was an e-mail to their PR department. Fail to assert notability, and I can find no evidence that there's anything to assert. --DeLarge (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with Steve that the only sourcing required would be verification that this is, in fact, a national organization. There's almost no independent, non-directory sources available (and only 54 unique Google hits for "Club Peugeot UK") to indicate notability, whether membership is available across the Kingdom or not. The motorbase link is trivial from a directory that lists 16 pages worth of auto clubs--779 total. Without independent sources, this article is nothing more than repetition of claims on the club's website.This membership info .pdf can provide a little more content if the article survives... — Scientizzle 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 11:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dummy saga[edit]

ORish material that is probably unref-able anyway, on a topic that doesnt warrant its own article; the "saga" isn't even, in fact, an official saga, just a collection of books within a series. Merge what is slavageable, delete the rest. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is nothing in this article that isn't already covered elsewhere. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slappy the Dummy, no need for deletion. SNS (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Moore and Jimmy Wang Yang[edit]

Wrestling tag team in WWE; articles already exist for both members and the team together does not appear to be notable, as a team like The Outsiders are. No belts won, no team name, no coverage out of universe, no article, IMHO. CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NN. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; fails WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a member of WP:PW it is completely non notable. NiciVampireHeart (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - I dont know, but this team has been teaming up for several months now and are the number one contenders for the WWE Tag Team Championship. It probably should be deleted per what is above and mayby recreated later, but for now im on both sides.TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per below comments. They become even more notable if they win the tag belts this Tuesday (when they face the champs). TJ Spyke 23:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I also feel with some work this article can be turned into at least a start class, similar to the Major Brothers.--TrUcO9311 ^TaLk / _SiGn 06:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They have been teaming for quite some time now and are a regular tag team (not just two random guys temporarily teaming), partially because WWE seems to have forgotten about the cruiserweight division since the title was vacated in September. The problem is that the article doesn't have any third party sources. They are notable as a tag team though. TJ Spyke 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two aformentioned wrestlers are indeed a tag team, and have solely concentrated their in ring competition in the tag team division since WWE seemingly retired the Cruiserweight division last year. They are pretty notable as they are feuding with the WWE Tag Team Champions (becoming the #1 tag team on Smackdown!). The article should be kept and supplied with sources afterwards. Feedback ^☎ 09:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Jordan Morrison Payne 10:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to be happening a lot lately. Two wrestlers who team together, even for a few months, don't necessarily become notable as a tag team because of it. There's hundred of possible combinations you could say are viable articles, but things like this will lead to even less notable teams being considered. IF they win the tag championships, sure, give them an article. Otherwise, they have no name, no major coverage, and their individual articles should be able to cover everything. Ada Maniac 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Truco9311. iMatthew (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - New tag team, no relevant. Remember, we'll create Mark Henry and Big Daddy V, Eugene and Shannon Moore, Kane and CM Punk, John Morrison and The Miz, Chris Benoit and Kurt Angle, Matt Hardy and MVP, and a few more.... --KingOfDX (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of those you listed, only Morrison and Miz have been a regular tag team (meaning most of their matches are tag matches). Yang and Moore have competed on almost only tag team matches for the last several months. TJ Spyke 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Adamaniac and KingofDX. Nikki311 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - going for tag title tomorrow night.--72.186.91.47 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of recreation later. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on current standards, theya re certainly notable enough to have an article, but overall I feel like we have too many tag team articles that could fit into wrestlers main page.LessThanClippers (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as of last show they were reffered to by an actual team name "The Redneck and the Reject" —Preceding unsigned comment added by LessThanClippers (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Koziol[edit]

Appears to be a fake as a Google search doesn't turn up any boxer by the name of Matthew Koziol. Canuck85 (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search turns up nothing but Wiki articles. I tried searching for him in reference to be ing Canadian, a boxer, boxing, and tried also searching for his famed opponent. All nothing. Even though it was a time ago, champions should be finable. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that it was created by a single user, single edit person, no changes since created on Nov 10, 2007. Pharmboy (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most likely a WP:HOAX. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:HOAX. Macy's 123 review me 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Lies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Maxim_(talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. This level of detail for an individual team in a League that is atleast 3 steps away from the NHL and is barely a professional league is a bit too much. Information would be better suited on a league wide season page if anything at all. Higher level team seasons than this recently fell to afd as well. If this were a National Hockey League team then we would be discriminating and it would be fine. Djsasso (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Before I clicked that link, I thought I was going to see a list of tornadoes that touched-down in Huntsville. No offence to the team, but I never heard of them and they probably don't do anything notable. Tavix (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created all the above articles. I didn't know that the articles would be such a problem. I was hoping that some people of the other teams in our league would follow and post similar articles. Also I had noticed that a lot of other pages (not any I had created or edited) had been marked or pegged for deletion because of not enough detail. Now these have been pegged for to much detail on a small subject. But I am not here to argue, you have interpreted the rules to rule these articles as "not acceptable" and as such should be deleted. I will found a more appropriate wiki for the articles.

I would like to ask that the current season be kept 2007-08 Huntsville Havoc Season and I shall rename it Huntsville Havoc current season and I will keep it updated with the most current season to date activity. Each season it can be wiped, erased or deleted and I can start it over again at the season start. I don't call that a "indiscriminate collection". I see indiscriminate as random, haphazard, confusing or chaotic.

As for the confusion of the name of the Huntsville Tornado. If you go to the team article you can see that the team was named after a tornado outbreak in Nov 1989. In my opinion a poor choice of names.

DustStorm (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all non-notable, WikiPedia is not a sports almanac. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom --Pparazorback (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redline Rumble[edit]

No source to claim notability, very unsure about this claim of notability this page states it has. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not to mention (checking the the creator's contribution history) created by a homophobic, Peugeot, German, French hating banned user, this nominated article is the only one that he has not vandalised. Not to mention the chauvinistic issue of the 3rd paragraph, is that trying to say all females who are there at night or camp there are pole-dancers. Willirennen (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With due respect, no matter how obviously despicable the editor, the article must be judged on its merits, not the merits of the editor. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having said that, the only sources I could find were either advertising, personal blogs, or information from the speedway or Redline magazine, neither of which meets the independence requirements of WP:V. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of David Darling's article by the same name, which this article helpfully links to and which it is word-for-word identical to, even down to the formatting of the references, which isn't the Wikipedia house style. This article was created in 2006. Darling's was written in 2004, according to the Wayback Machine. Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentinel hypothesis[edit]

Inherent OR, no citation or evidence that the basic premise of this article is anything other than one author's theory based on a work of fiction Markeer 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When one of two references for a supposed scientific hypothesis is a work of fiction, there's trouble. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Isuzu Off Road[edit]

Do we need more articles about non notable car clubs Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this probably could have been speedied. Delete, obviously. No sources, no indication of significance. Friday (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not a national organisation and it doesn't list sources for other notability. Per WP:ORGOrganizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.. SteveBaker (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Tavix (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG, being a regional car owners' club. --DeLarge (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 18:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Disturbance[edit]

Too new to be notable. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although the newness of the article should hardly be the reason to delete it. Alloranleon (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough information there to establish notability. SteveBaker (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - G search turns up some videos ... a very few car related. No sources found. Fails WP:V and WP:N. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom/speedy delete nom nominated after it was deleted per A7 has since been deleted per a3 and the nom has requested that this be closed; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark game[edit]

Unremarkable game with no sources and probably impossible to ever source. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day CastAStone /^/(talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused, I don't see any page history except you nominating it for deletion.... TheBilly (talk) 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close the nominator nominated this article for deletion after it had been deleted per CSD A7 it has since been deleted per csd A3. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close That's exactly what I did--CastAStone /^/(talk) 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street-Legal[edit]

Non notable boy racer club. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete via db-club, no notability asserted as well. Pharmboy (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not a national organisation and it doesn't list sources for other notability. Per WP:ORG Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.. (The name of the article sucks too - so even if the decision is to keep - we should rename it). SteveBaker (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As the article stands now it does not appear to be notable, however it does assert notability through the "Trophy Case" section, so speedy per db club would be inappropriate. If sources could be provided for the one champion trophy I might change my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think those awards are worth much in terms of club notability. Generally, they might indicate one or two enthusiastic members put up a stand in the outdoor car show with some pretty photos in it or something. Almost any active car club will have a few of those kinds of awards. It doesn't say much about the notability of the club as a whole. A couple of enthusiasts could score those awards by themselves. My local car club has 500 active members - we turn up at classic car shows with 30 to 40 gleaming, restored cars - we won the 'best car in show' award at the Texas State Fair several years in a row. That's a better measure of notability than some awards handed out for 'nice stand' - yet I don't think we would write an article about Mini Owners of Texas. The standard is that articles about the club have to have been written in the press - beyond a mere address listing - a substantive article. SteveBaker (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main trophy I was concerned about was the "National Car Club Champions" for Donny South in 2006, having won that (or claimed to as there are no sources) is an assertion of notability making this club ineligible for an A7 speedy deletion. I agree with you that a press article would be needed to show that the award makes them notable, however could this be provided I would be in favor of keeping th article. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and redirect to street legal as a plausible search term.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable local group without any cites. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all above PrinceGloria (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate as an alternative redirect to street legal, as per User:HisSpaceResearch. --DeLarge (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of spells and potions in Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV series)[edit]

Original Research, fancruft, not notable outside the TV show. Pharmboy (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should also include List of spells and potions in Sabrina, the Teenage Witch (TV Series) which is a redirect. Pharmboy (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only reason I created the page was because the information was strangely located on the List of Episodes page.. I guess it should be deleted if it counts as Fancruft, but I didn't want to just delete something that somebody had obviously spent time writing. :) - ǀ Mikay ǀ 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better as part of a main article, and trimmed down to be more concise. I'm not saying there is no room for the information, but a seperate article is likely not the place for it. Pharmboy (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge - Not every detail of what happened needs to be included, but 2-3 short sentences for each on the main article might be OK. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per StudierMalMarburg. Lists where most/all of the items don't (and aren't likely to) have their own articles are unnecessary. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate collection of info and total cruft. Merge any sourcable, relevant content if necessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 06:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Street Car[edit]

Non-notable boy racer show, despite its claims to be on this article, otherwise this article is unsourced and lacking in context to prove notability. Moosato Cowabata (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I did find http://www.santapod.co.uk/e_usc.php and http://www.rqdirect.co.uk/ukshows.php, and if it *is* the largest, it is likely notable enough for keeping. Needs way better citations, however, that isn't a valid reason for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete, When claiming to be the largest, I would like to see numbers, not claims and to question these links, these are advertising and photo sites, not to mention that most of these ghits are forums and listings for owners' club sites which would not meet the independence requirements of WP:V. The only notable independent fact I can positively think of is, when it was under its former name of Ultimate Fast Car (UFC), the August Bank Holiday 1997 debacle leading to them to change its name to USC, these are highlighted in the Winter 1997 issue of the Z Club magazine. You can come to their forum and there will be a good numbers of members who will tell you about their experience there to back it up, that why the club boycotted it since. Willirennen (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Willirennen (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cannabis, where information from Chocolate Thai has been merged. (per WP:AN discussion). - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Thai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is unverifiable, original research with no reliable sources. Zenwhat (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC) In the past AfD discussion, there were only two participants. If the article is "notable," please cite a source. It's entirely possible it may be an urban myth. Zenwhat (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Pundit settled the matter about the references. We both agreed on a merge. The information in this article has been merged into the main article on Cannabis. [27] So, this issue appears to be resolved with 100% consensus and any admin reading this page simply needs to delete Chocolate Thai. The only "keep" vote below is based on arguments made by Pundit, which she has since withdrawn, changing her vote from keep to merge. Zenwhat (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:My change of vote is just for myself. All other editors who wish to change their view can do so by making it explicit here, let's not assume what their motives or influences were. Pundit|utter 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenwhat, what do you mean by saying that "information in this article has been merged into the main article on Cannabis"? Not a single sentence went through (not to mention saying about the artist's name or giving the references to the magazine. Pundit|utter 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only now have I incorporated some of the info. It could be considered for other strains as well (in cases where it can be succinct and does not require a separate entry). Pundit|utter 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability over a very long period of time, making it seem highly unlikely notability can be established. Delete as non-notable stoner-cruft. TheBilly (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Although I know barely anything about cannabis, a short google search brought hundreds of results, of which I incorporated a couple into the article. Apparently, the thing is a real phenomenon and if cannabis strains are encyclopedic, this one should be as well (especially because it, seemingly, is really known in this subculture). Pundit|utter 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an argument to avoid, since google results are meaningless if the current article content is unreliable. Our standards are WP:V not whatever comes up in an arbitrary google search. You need to read WP:ATA#Google_test. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surprisingly, I am familiar with this rule. However, while not being a proof of anything, google results definitely are an indicator. In this case, you have close to 6 thousand hits for "Chocolate Thai", marijuaha, which shows at least that the term is used. Although Urban Dictionary probably is not the best reference, but there are also pages with parental advisory, etc. For slang/drugs vocabulary I doubt if there are any prime peer-reviewed academic publications to rely on. Pundit|utter 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after some consideration and ardent disputes with Zenwhat I still think the topic is notable, but merging will not do any harm, and it is unlikely that the article will be significantly expanded just because of the nature of this topic. Pundit|utter 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe it to be poor manner to start another AfD 3 weeks after the first one was resolved, although I agree that the original one should probably have been extended, rather than closed with only 2 people voting. Nevertheless, it definitely is bad style not to inform them at least, not to mention transferring their votes here (as this voting, if it is to have any sense after such a short period, could be treated as the previous one's extension).Pundit|utter 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Comment. I agree I should've notified the above two. I forgot. I didn't notice it was only three weeks ago As for copying the past votes, I don't believe that's done generally, as there's usually a completely new vote and anyone can click the link above to see the past votes. Zenwhat (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References were inserted after nomination. That Chocolate Thai is the strain's "street name" does not in any way affect the strain's relevance. If anything, the page could be moved to a more "scientific" name. Also, I second every comment by Pundit above. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - From what I am seeing, there is not a lot of independent sourcework, but there may be enough to include a mention in another article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have changed my mind from the previous discussion. ALL of the sources currently cited are unreliable, from the likes of Urban Dictionary and similarly unreliable publications. I have no problem with a good article being created at a later date, but this version and all of its history would be a good riddance. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's my main point. If anyone can find a valid citation for the term, please present it. If anyone can't, there is no reason to keep this article. I looked myself and, as you said, it's all just urban dictionary and blogs. Zenwhat (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources. -- Cat ^chi? 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge what can be surced form reliable sources (very little) and redirect Guy (Help!) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pundit, I'm glad to see you come around. However, proposing keep, delete, or merge because "It doesn't do any harm" is a specific argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It doesn't do any harm.

With that said, I think delete\merge would be a good idea too.

Listing strains of marijuana would be something great to add to Wikipedia and while Wikipedia is Wikipedia not a dictionary for slang, I do agree that the widespread perception of cannabis strains -- even if they're urban legends, like chocolate thai, blueberry thai, and purple haze -- they're a large enough cultural phenomenon to warrant, but it's not up on Cannabis.

So, what do you all think about this ? Zenwhat (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

tangential remark I have no real opinion on the underlying debate here (checked it out from curiosity after a brouhaha on one of the ref desks) but I just want to point out that the "arguments to avoid" thing is only an essay. Perfectly reasonable to use it as a shorthand link to arguments you don't want to repeat. The unfortunate thing is that some editors think it's some sort of policy or guideline, which it isn't at all. It's a "read it and see if you agree or not" kind of thing. I agree with some of it, sharply disagree with some other parts. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Indeed I made my argument too simple and imprecise. What I'm saying is that leaving this information on Chocolate Thai not only will do no harm, but also will provide useful and interesting information. I myself, for that matter, have not known about this topic at all and was really glad to learn (which is one of the reasons why I find Wikipedia fascinating). Your edit is a good idea, listing these strains in cannabis may be a good way of merge. Pundit|utter 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dubious notability, the references are ridiculous and the prose is bloated and anecdotal. Now I'm off to wooop chicken with Miss Emma, PLUR everyone. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles on neologisms should be avoided. Information on the substance described by the neologism can be adequately covered in Cannabis. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 07:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merak Mail Server[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Blatant advertising. Article fails to establish notability. No sources provided, only ones I found talk about security holes in the software. BJ^Talk 13:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The software isn't notable. I did see mention on Google to it having won multiple awards, however, I could not locate the awards it won. Xymmax (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The article is basically a dump of the product's features and does not explain the reason for notability well. The article is also misnamed as it should be called "Icewarp". Researching notability in Google was not easy as most hits for Icewarp are links to download sites or webmail systems which use it. Still I guess it proves that people are using it. I have found a couple of proper independent reviews which I am going to add to the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. It's a niche product, basically an alternative to Exchange with some unique features interesting for those dealing with servers and antispam technologies. Btw the vendor claims there are 40 mil of end users. The article has been rewritten last year as my (user/fan) initiative, keeping neutrality in mind, hence only the product features are mentioned. Recently I also went to settle the issue with image fair use (screenshots) so hopefully they won't be orphaned for a long time. Icewarp ltd (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 10:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameStreet Talk[edit]

Non-notable software. Article fails to establish notability and provides no sources. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. BJ^Talk 13:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I see lots of ghits, but they are all blogs and forums and couldn't find any reliable sources or actual reviews. One page for for a review, but the site pulls a 404 when you try to load it. Pharmboy (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, I don't see lots of ghits. 162 on "GameStreet Talk" -forum -blog -wiki -site:gamestreet.net, none of them reliable. User:Krator (t c) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software. Terraxos (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article clearly meets WP:N, but there are good arguments on both sides of the issue of whether it meets WP:RS. This should probably go to WP:Dispute Resolution. Argyriou (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metgethen massacre[edit]

The only line that has something to do with the lemma is: "The bodies were then discovered". Furthermore all the sources make reference to the Nemmersdorf massacre and not this event. As it is, this is just a lemma to showcase a gruesome picture, but without encyclopedic value. noclador (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: my deletion-request: The German article about the events in Metgethen has been radically reedited. (see: de:Massaker von Metgethen‎). Concerns I had about this being a pure propaganda article intended to give wikipedia-credibility to something that until now only right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis believed in, have been lifted by de:Benutzer:Otfried Lieberknechts good additions and excellent research. The German article now is anything but right wing Propaganda and will help disperse rather then reinforce right-wing myths and misinformation about the events, that might have happened there. Therefore I remove my deletion request, as over the next days I will translate the German article into English (hopefully other users will assist). Therefore: Keep --noclador (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hate this type of case. The article is sourced, but many of them I either cannot read or cannot obtain. How, then, are we properly to judge? I certainly can find mention of this incident in Google, but when you exclude Wikipedia there are few reliable sources, but rather POV forks on WWII. The nominator is absolutely correct about the current state of the article. I suppose that since the onus is on the article to show proper sourcing of each of its claims (at least the ones that aren't common knowledge) I would strip it of all assertions that lack citations - making it a true stub - and label it for WP:MILHIST. Xymmax (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand German very well and I can say: the websources that are there do not even mention this event - only the events at Nemmersdorf. And very telling: the website that does not work mentions "Junge Freiheit" (a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly) and when I google the names of the people there I come to Nazi pages, revisionist pages that dare to list this "event" alongside Auschwitz and Dresden... The only good link I found was to this book review about the book by Bernhard Fisch, that proves that the whole event was staged by the Nazis to scare the people into fighting. --noclador (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either User:Noclador does not understand German very well, or he is a liar, or both, as evident from above statement. The Bernhard Fisch book on Nemmersdorf (the source wound up here due to me copying parts of that article as a template) examines how Goebbels took advantage of the real event, and how people reacted to it. It is acknowledged that a massacre had happened, e.g. by the German Bundestag website which states "Nicht, dass in Nemmersdorf Grauenvolles geschehen ist, wird von Fisch in Zweifel gezogen", meaning "Fisch does not doubt that in Nemmersdorf horrible things had happened", and so does this review, stating "In seinem Buch zeigt Bernhard Fisch, wie die unleugbaren Morde in Nemmersdorf von Goebbels benutzt wurden" (in his book he shows how the undeniable murders were used by Goebbels). In addition, User:Noclador attacks the Junge Freiheit as "a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly". This a newspaper was and is attacked by leftists as it exposes their shenanigans, yet defended by "the German Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the paper which can not be called right-wing-extremist". Frankly, noclador should be banned from English Wikipedia for spreading such lies. -- Matthead DisOuß 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthead, stop the personal attacks and stop quoting only part of paragraphs.

Bernhard Fisch book on Nemmersdorf; the full quote is: "Nicht, dass in Nemmersdorf Grauenvolles geschehen ist, wird von Fisch in Zweifel gezogen, sondern ob es tatsächlich hinsichtlich Quantität und Systematik jene Dimensionen aufwies, die ihm seither zugeschrieben wurden." the part you choose to "forget" translates as: "Not, that in Nemmersdorf horrible things happened, is doubted by Fisch, but if it really had the quantitative and systematic dimensions, which have been attributed to it."
re. the second review you mention, this quote is is much more telling about Nemmersdorf: "So wurde ohne Maß übertrieben, phantasiert oder gar absichtlich gelogen – mit dem Tod von knapp drei Dutzend Zivilisten wurde Politik gemacht." "Therefore it has been exaggerated, fantasized and even deliberately lied without measure - politics was made with the death of 3 dozen civilians." I do not deny Nemmersdorf, but I point out the massive exaggeration's.
The German Constitutional Court did not defend the Junge Freiheit, it ruled that the Junge Freiheit can only be included in the Verfassungsschutzbericht (state security report) as right-extremist paper if the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution can prove that the editing staff has an anti-constitutional agenda. But as usual Matthaed has quoted only half of the relevant sentence: "Finally, in 2005, the German Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the paper which can not be called right-wing-extremist by the State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution without proof."

It is annoying that Matthead goes straight for personal attacks (on the German wiki too), but I continue to assume good faith and suggest that we cease the Nemmersdorf and Junge Freiheit discussion now. --noclador (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who wrote "the book by Bernhard Fisch, that proves that the whole event was staged by the Nazis" which is nothing but a lie, and denies the "death of 3 dozen civilians", especially after asserting your bilingual skills. Also, you enriched this discussing which the following "Schlagwörter": "Junge Freiheit", rightwing/nationalist German, Nazi, revisionist, Auschwitz, Dresden. Also, you did not make clear that Fisch's book deals with Nemmersdorf, thus insinuating that "the whole (Metgethen) event was staged by the Nazis". Sorry, but this does not "continue to assume good faith". -- Matthead DisOuß 15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the equivalent German article is also being considered for deletion, see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/2. Januar 2008#Massaker von Metgethen. Since the issue is basically verifiability, we should probably arrive at the same conclusion. Rigadoun (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am one of the German subscribers currently discussing the German version of this article (actually the only one arguing for rather not deleting it). I have now cleaned up your article a bit, removing some references which are clearly not specific for Metgethen, adding a few others with precise page references. I cannot say whether the reports by German military pesons (e.g. Karl August Knorr, Hermann Sommer, see the Bundearchiv publication by Spieler) are to be trusted, nor whether the photgraphs listed in the LOC (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/catalog.html, search for reference number "LOT 2280") are authentic. As it seems, this subject was never seriously investigated by historians (nor by German legal prosecutors). Yet the "massacre of Metgethen" -- true or mostly exagerated by German NS propaganda -- is sufficiently present in printed publications and on more or less openly revisionistic (or neo-nazi) websites to desever a WP entry, preferably a better one than we can currently supply. 84.60.219.222 (Otfried Lieberknecht) (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (p.s.: you can contact me here: [28])[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete I put up the German article for deletion. The simple reason being that there is no information at all given about the massacre itself. As the German article seems to be a translation of the English one it would only be consequent to delete it, too. There is no question of relevance as the massacre is mentioned in quite a few books. If anyone should feel obliged to provide more information - preferably from respectable sources - that would be most welcome. Simply adding every title that mentions Metgethen though won't do, I am afraid. --Dodo19 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that you really want the details to be displayed in your article. I have improved your bibliographic references, so that you or the reader can check with the contemporary reports, both in the German original or in the English translations provided by Zayas. Some of the latter can also be found in the "Racist National Library" on the web (which is usually not my preferred "library" for picking quotations):

Testimony of Karl August Knorr: I was at the time an orderly officer in the 561st Civilian Grenadier Division charged with the task of restoring order in Metgethen after it had been recaptured by our side. In one street I discovered the bodies of two young women, both about 20, who had apparently been tied by the legs, one limb each between two cars, and then torn apart when the vehicles were driven in opposite directions. It was an absolutely disgusting sight. In that same street I came upon a large villa. I can't remember the name of the street. The house contained around 60 women, all of whom we evacuated from the area. Half of them had to be taken immediately to a psychiatric hospital ... on average they had been raped 60 to 70 times a day. ([29])
Testimony of Horst A., driver for the Intelligence Reserve Detachment I, Königsberg: When we reached Metgethen, we were confronted with a gruesome sight: We found several hundred dead German soldiers, many of whom had been disfigured beyond recognition. There were murdered civilians in just about every home, likewise disfigured in a most bestial manner. For example, some women had their breasts cut off, and in backyard gardens we found scarcely clad women who had been hanged upside down. In one house we came across a 63-year-old woman still alive. Crying, she told us that she had been raped by 12 to 15 Russians. She lay on the floor covered in blood. This old woman's daughter had escaped into the forest nearby, but her one-year-old child was abducted by the Russians. In the streets of Metgethen, and also at the railroad station, we found approximately 15 baby carriages, some overturned, all empty. We concluded that this meant the Russians had also abducted these babies. (same link as above)
Testimony of Captain Hermann Sommer, former member of the staff of the fortress commander of Königsberg, General Lasch: I made my own observations when I was sent to Metgethen on official business on February 27, 1945. Just on the outskirts of town near the first railway crossing, I turned my motorcycle into a gravel driveway so that I could look over a building and see if it was suitable for service use. Behind the building I suddenly came upon the bodies of 12 women and six children. Most of the children had been killed by a blow to the head with a blunt instrument, some had numerous bayonet wounds in their tiny bodies. The women, mostly between 40 and 60 years of age, had been killed with knife or bayonet. All of them bore the unmistakable black-and-blue marks of beatings. ([30])

--195.233.250.7 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]

The above three "eye witnesses" accounts come from a site that is a pure Nazi Propaganda site. There is even a glorifying article ("Otto Remer, German Patriot") there about the fanatical Nazi Otto Remer. Also the excerpts are from a book by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, who has been heavily criticized in Germany for taking eyewitness accounts directly from Nazi sources and presentingthem as the truth. In short: these three above statements were published first during 1945 by the Nazis as propaganda and today are used in Germany only by rightwing and neo-nazi groups. We can not base wikipedia articles on the Nazis view of the world. --noclador (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pure Nazi Propaganda site quoting Zayas with his translation of contemporary German reports. If you want to base your article on evidence, you will have to use -- with the necessary critical precautions -- evidence supplied by German military persons, given that Soviets did not publish their records, if they kept any records at all of this event. Zayas has been criticized, and with good reasons, to take evidence of this kind at face value, yet nobody has criticized him so far for mistranslating his sources, nor is anybody suggesting that you should share his interpretations and conclusions. The article is anyway sufficiently sourced with a reliable German publication (Spieler 1989, co-published by Bundesamt Koblenz) and with a German webpage (Klonovsky, where you can find quotation from two of the above reports -- Knorr and Sommer -- in German for getting a first rough idea of the quality of Zayas' translations). --195.233.250.7 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this but I am not the author of the article. I am the one who originally called for the deletion of the German article. The original author of both is user:matthead. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is notable, and sourced in reputable recent sources, yet these are not very easily accessible, unlike sources denounced as "pure Nazi Propaganda" by some. This article was translated by me from de:Massaker von Metgethen, which in turn was a split-off from de:Massaker von Nemmersdorf, created by me based on Nemmersdorf massacre, and German talk on the article of the now Russian town which used to be called Nemmersdorf. Thus, sources got mixed up. Instead of improving, some Germans were busy attacking these articles - and still are. -- Matthead DisOuß 13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, that this is not a question of relevance or sources. The problem is, still, that there is no information about anything that happpened, might have happened, is said to have happened or is supposed to have happened during the Metgegthen massacre in the article. As long as there is no information, it is impossible to make any qualified comments on the respectability of its sources. The whole point of the exercise being to establish these facts or to discard the article. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggest "start with a perfect article, not a stub"? The point of the two deletion requests by you on de-wiki as anon, and by Noclador here, is to force me, and others, to "establish these facts or to discard the article"? -- Matthead DisOuß 14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A stub is fine with me, as long as it states some sort of facts. As the article does not mention any facts regarding the lemma, it is superfluous at best. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Wikipedia isn't for spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda. Reduce content to short info, without Neo-Nazi details, add to Neo-Nazism article, can be be brought to more lenght in Neonazi propaganda article that can be created.--Molobo (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due precautions it's not exactly a neutral position to qualify the whole event simply as "Neo-Nazi propaganda". The German NS-sources are certainly biased, and Neo-Nazis are trying to use them for their purposes, also user:Matthead has done little to avoid the impression that claims made by German NS-sources are to be taken as facts. Yet I have now changed the text in order to point out more clearly what the sources are, and I have added a quotation of Hermann Sommer's report (published not by Neo-nazis, but by the German Bundesarchiv) with my own translation. I would prefer to remove also the picture, because the authenticity of this picture (taken in Metgethen or somewhere else, displaying children killed by Soviet forces or under different circumstances?) seems uncertain, also this picture is adding more to the shocking effect than to the facts. Yet I will rather leave this to you to decide. Exactly because Neo-Nazis and revisionists are using this "massacre" for their purposes, I think that Wikipedia should try to give a neutral and sourced account of the facts. --195.233.250.7 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]

"Exactly because Neo-Nazis and revisionists are using this "massacre" for their purposes, I think that Wikipedia should try to give a neutral and sourced account of the facts"

Sure, I agree, but in Neonazi propaganda article. We shouldn't give credibility to this propaganda by making seperate articles for all claims it makes.--Molobo (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even as propaganda, it's not simply "Neonazi"-propaganda. Revisionists too are using it. NS-propaganda (which was not yet "neo") was using it to deter the German population from surrendering to Soviet troups. It has been published in autobiographic accounts by former fugitives reporting it as hearsay and not even using it for propagandistic purposes at all. And, like it or not, there is not much to prove that the propaganda and rumours were not actually based on (at least some) facts. It's not our task to research the true facts, but WP should give an idea of the claims and of the sources so that readers checking what they have heard or read elsewhere can get a better understanding of this issue. --195.233.250.7 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)[reply]

Delete, although I wouldn't call it Neo-Nazi propaganda...its value to the project is very questionable. Bogdan ^що? 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got hold of the report from the German Federal Archives (Spiegel (ed), 1989). The full statement of Capt. H. Sommer is published there on pages 146-148. While there are some minor errors in the English translation published by de Zayas, he omits a whole paragraph. More serious is the fact that it is in this paragraph where Sommer describes some of the circumstances of the alleged massacre on German civilians. The omitted paragraph reads:

„Da die Auffindung von Leichen bei der Königsberger Zivilbevölkerung sich rasch herumsprach und ungeheure Empörung auslöste, strömten unzählige Menschen zu meiner Dienststelle, um zu erfahren, ob sich Angehörige darunter befanden. Nach meiner Kenntnis dieser Vorgänge handelte es sich hier um die Machenschaften eines russischen Regiments, das im Abschnitt Metgethen-Wargen eingesetzt war. Ferner steht fest, daß ein großer Teil der Leichen nicht deutscher, sondern russischer Nationalität war. Im Raume der Feuerwehrschule Metgethen hatte der Kommandeur der Ukrainischen Feuerlöschpolizei, Fiedler, mehrere Tausend Ukrainer mit ihren Familien evakuiert. Die Zahl der im Metgether Wald hausierenden ukrainischen Treck-Angehörigen wurde auf 25 000 Menschen beziffert. Als die Russen dieses Waldgebiet und den Ort Metgethen überraschend besetzten, wurde der größte Teil der Männer sofort in russische Strafabteilungen eingegliedert und der Rest erschossen. Diese Tatsache gaben mehrere Hundert Kriegsgefangene unseren Vernehmungsoffizieren zu Protokoll.“

(News of the discovery of dead bodies spread rapidly among the civilian population of Koenigsberg and caused enormous outrage. Innumerable masses of people came to my office to inquire after their relatives. According to my knowledge of these events it were the machinations of a Russian regiment that was operating in the sector Metgethen-Wargen. Furthermore it is certain that a larger number of the bodies were not of German, but of Russian nationality. The commander of the Ukrainian fire brigade, Fiedler, had evacuated several thousands of Ukrainians with their families to the fire brigade's training centre in Metgethen. The number of Ukrainian refugees in the forest of Metgethen was given as 25.000. When the Russians suddenly occupied the forest area and the village of Metgethen, most of the men were immediately drafted into Russian penal battalions and the rest shot dead. These facts have been stated by several hundreds of prisoners of war to our interrogators.)My translation.

In the light of this information I see no alternative but to delete the article. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The shooting of Russians/Ukrainians by the Red Army does not qualify as massacre, thus the article needs to be deleted? I think this, and the high number quoted, shows that more light needs to be shed on the issue. If that many refugees from abroad were there, locals were surely outnumbered. Does Zayas remain silent about non-German victims? -- Matthead DisOuß 20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours of shooting any number of any group of people under any circumstances do not qualify as anything here unless there is at least one reliable source to it. If you would have done a little research of your own you might have figured out that there is hardly any information about the alleged massacre, so chances of shedding more light on anything are rather slim. And frankly, I do not care what de Zayas says about non-German victims anymore, because after omitting that paragraph I do not consider him a reliable source anymore. --Dodo19 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Blaze[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. Closest to a claim of notierity the article gives is that they came in second in a contest to find the best unsigned band in Europe. Redfarmer (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's a bit of concern here with self-promotion, too, due to the first username that created the article. Redfarmer (talk) 13:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who created the article originally was named User:Magnus Blaze (rock band) and has since been banned for blatent advertising. Redfarmer (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has now edited article to assert that their first album was a commercial success but I can find no mention of the band on AllMusicGuide.com or UBL.com. Redfarmer (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't understand!!! all the information on the 'Magnus Blaze' page is TRUE! the band DID come second in the Kerrang Finals...this is not self-promotion! MySpace is used for all promotion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.101.38 (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the nomination, the concern isn't whether the information is true or not; it's whether the band is notable enough. Almost all Ghits for the band I checked out were networking sites or places to buy music, which does not constitute notoriaty. Redfarmer (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, look at this link: WP:MUSIC. If the band meets any one of those criteria, you will have an excellent argument that the band is notable enough for its own article. Otherwise, you tend to have the article nominated for deletion, as happened in this case. Xymmax (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As of this moment I can not find anything to show the band meets the music notability standards. If any is provided, I'll happily switch my comment. Xymmax (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no sources that I can find that would make this band notable. I would be willing to change my opinion if any sources could be provided (that meet WP:V standards). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the band meets the following criteria;

9 Has won or placed in a major music competition. - Kerrang and Bodog Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.101.38 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Kerrang's web site and could find no mention of the band anywhere on a search, or even a category for their awards called "Best unsigned band." Can you provide a reference from a verifiable source? Redfarmer (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's a start. Can you help us with a link to the competitions so that we can judge whether they're major? Are they national competitions? Also, we will need a reliable source that shows how the band placed in the competiton - I'm afraid that first-hand information is not considered to be reliable. Also, if you want sign your posts (so that we at least can see the time you posted, which helps make sense of the comments) type ~~~~. Thanks. Xymmax (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BAND and WP:MUSIC until WP:RS's can be found to prove otherwise. Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Kerrang occured three years ago, i wouldn't expect any information on the Kerrang finals, due to the website being updated. However, Magnus Blaze are placed in a current, major, national competion hosted by Bodog Music, called, the Bodog Battle. Here is a link to the website, for evidence of this comp and the band...hope this helps. 17.16 2 Jan 08

http://battle.bodoglife.eu/home/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.101.38 (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm maintaining my nomination. Just being in this contest does not make the band notable. If they were to win or possibly place, that may make them notable. I still want to see verifiable proof on this Kerrang contest if I'm to take it as notability. Redfarmer (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you. The band is close, but I don't see the sources needed. I'm convinced that they were indeed finalist in the Kerrang competition. I found a few Google hits for it under the name "Snickers Unsigned" as Snickers was the corporate sponsor. The website is gone, but partial mirror at archive.org here shows that at one point it did have Magnus Blaze as one its three finalists. Still, I don't think that's a reliable source. Were there any articles in local newspapers about the band's success? That's the true hallmark of the kind of notability that would support an article. Xymmax (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, plus the Bodog contest doesn't seem to have taken place yet. If they win that and their victory gets reported by a reliable source then there would be a good case for an article, I guess. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bodog Battle IS currently being held. Once again, i DO believe the band meets the following criteria;

9 Has won or placed in a major music competition this site clearly proves this!!!! click here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.101.38 (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's currently being held, though, they haven't placed yet in it. Redfarmer (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. They don't quite meet WP:MUSIC yet it seems.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay, it is clear that at least one of the criteria's where met. 10.49, 3 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.101.38 (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd be inclined to agree with you if there were any reliable sources about this contest at all. I don't consider the archived mirror of the website to be a reliable source because there's no way to tell if the content of the original website was later changed, or if information was missed, or to get the full context of the information. Don't get me wrong, as I stated, I believe that the band made the finals. However, without reliable sources what I beleive isn't important. If kerrang! or snickers.co.uk maintained a winner's list, or if the results had been published in paper or other reliable source, I would argue for a keep. I also would like to see more about the contest itself. You may have noticed that our guidelines don't define "major competition." I'm inclined to think that the Snickers competition qualifies on that score, since it appears to have had at least 2000 entrants, but others may disagree. In the end, the burden is on the article to show notability, and judging from the comments so far, it isn't quite there yet. Xymmax (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have several articles from local newspapers and the article from KERRANG MAG - ISSUE 1053 APRIL 23 2005 - £1.99 - about the band's success at the Kerrang finals. The band also recieved brief television/press coverage. I have a video file showing the final!!!! How do i go about sending the information to you, Redfarmer ?????????? 13.15, 3 8 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.36.41 (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 criteria A7 and A1. Keilana^talk_(recall) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anneberg Motocross Track[edit]

It's just a single line orphaned article about a race track without any notability Chris Ssk _talk 13:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete googling for "Annenberg Motocross Track" Sweden gave exactly zero hits. Leaving off Sweden gave me a track in Alabama. Pharmboy (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1. I agree with both of you as well.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Swire (physio)[edit]

This subject is claimed to be notable due to his working duties as Man Utd physio. Personally, I do not agree with him being notable (notability is not usually inherited), and in a more generic basis I do not think being a football physio is a valid assertion of notability, as such figures are mainly cited only once a player gets injured, usually obtaining only a short mention with no other kind of press coverage. Such concerns were already briefly discussed in the article talkpage. Have your say. Angelo (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Angelo (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the writer of this article, I'm bound to go for a "Keep" vote, but I do genuinely believe that the information in the article is sufficiently well-referenced to qualify Swire as passing WP:BIO, i.e. he has had significant coverage in third-party media. – Pee Jay 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of significant coverage in third party sources - ones referenced in the article do not treat him as the central focus of the piece. I can't see how notability is demonstrated here. - fchd (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - but only because the sources only largely refer to Swire by inference to the players he is treating. If sources can be found for the first few pars about his background, then I'd change to a keep. Peanut4 (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I have a source for that information, but at the minute, the site it's from is on the spam blacklist. – PeeJay 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weak keep I googled Rob Swire and found the interview to which you referred to the other day and I remember your request for it to be de-blacklisted. With that addition, I'd be wavering towards a weak keep. He's notable enough for an interview there, source on the BBC and the Manchester Evening News even if they are referring largely to other players. It's certainly a borderline case and I'd rather keep something borderline than delete it. Peanut4 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - I have now requested that the specific URL be whitelisted so that it can be included in the article. The discussion can be found here. – Pee Jay 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - three of the article's four references mention him in passing, the BBC one does include some significant coverage and quotes, but he is not the primary focus. The article, as it stands, covers Wayne Rooney as much as the subject. Qwghlm (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree, the article does focus a bit too much on Swire's involvement in Wayne Rooney's injury. If I can condense that section a bit, would that sway your vote? – Pee Jay 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have also added a link to a record of Swire's Man Utd career to the article. – Pee Jay 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result wasSpeedy Delete per WP:CSD#A7. Contesting a speedy by the creator does not have to force an afd. Pedro : Chat 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PublicFUSE[edit]

Non-notable website. Current status is "Private Beta", which indicates that it's not even open to the public yet. Not surprisingly, the secondary coverage is negligible, Google returns a whopping single hit, which is the website itself. Speedy tag removed by article creator without comment, so bringing it here just to be sure. Lankiveil (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of point of sale companies[edit]

This article should not have been created (I did it). This list invited several non-notable companies and spam. A new category has been created; this article can and should be deleted. I attempted a speedy delete but was overruled. Timneu22 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just to clarify, I declined to speedy delete this because the page has received many edits from other people. If you were the only person who had made content additions to the page then yes it would be speedy-deletable. However this really is not a remotely controversial deletion and is more suited to prod than AfD. Hut 8.5 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplication of information found elsewhere, vague reason for list bordering in indescriminate. Pharmboy (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone here.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other given comments. Mh29255 (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could be better served as a Category. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category style is much more suitable for this purpose, and doesn't automatically imply the list is comprehensive. Derekloffin (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It is a category now. ;-) Timneu22 (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quintura[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. Was speedied three times previously. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt due to lack of notability, as well as blatant advertising. Recommend protecting page from creation by non-admins, seeing as three deletions have already been passed on this article. Alloranleon (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt, maybe even a Speedy G4. Fails WP:WEB at any rate. Lankiveil (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete and Salt per nom and the fact that this article has already been deleted three times in the past in violation of Speedy G4. Mh29255 (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noctor[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Sources are provided, but please note that they are all either blogs or reader comments (!) on a newspaper website. Lankiveil (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. Although, for what it's worth, I slightly disagree on the blog issue here. One of the blogs ("NHS Blog Doctor") appears to have high recommendations from a number of notable news sources, but I don't consider that a firm qualification in any event. Yng varr 12:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good grief, the article was only 8 minutes old when you slapped a delete order on it. Give it a chance to be padded out a bit! --Amdsweb (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How padded out the article is is irrelevant; neologisms are forbidden. If anything, this should be listed at Wiktionary. Alloranleon (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if I thought there was any chance of this article ever developing into something other than cataloguing a non-notable neologism, I would have left it alone. However, the chances of this article being padded out to meet criteria are practically nil (as always, I will cheerfully withdraw the nom if notability is successfully asserted). Lankiveil (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per my above comment. Alloranleon (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteb the B is for bargain! JuJube (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef, neologism.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Mh29255 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The term 'Noctor' is in widespread use in the medical profession, and also on medical forum sites. This term is slowly creeping into the media, and I suspect the AfD has been suggested by someone in such a pseudo-job. Fishgoth, 4th Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.136.117 (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Assume good faith before leaving snarky useless comments like this one. JuJube (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI do not think the term is a neologism. Noctors have only appeared in the last 12 months within the NHS and represent a totally new job within the field of medicine. They are their own, new, entity rather than rebranding of an existing job. As such I do not believe that noctor is a neologism.--James Halpern (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Oil[edit]

This former oil company fails WP:CORP, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the List of oil refineries, of which it owns one in Arkansas. Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a company founded in 1922 very likely has some sources somewhere.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a public company, so unless you can actually find some sources (I could not), then I doubt any will be found. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Of the three links in the article, only the Lion Oil website works. However, I have found [31], [32] and [33], which appear to be reliable sources. Keep. Corvus cornix_talk 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, these don't confer notability of any sort, as they are routine for this industry. Oil pipelines and refineries are bought, sold and are subject to regulatory actions from the environmental agencies all the time. Unless this refinery was the subject of major catastrophe, I am not sure that this stuff is notable to anyone other than the lawyers or bankers of Lion oil. --Gavin Collins (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the US government dept of justice] isn't a reliable source?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A merger into Ergon (US) wouldn't be out of the question. Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Not a bad idea, given its length (or lack thereof). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Corvus.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the Arkansas Encyclopedia link, the URL was a bit off. It is a bio of the founder, but has some additional information about this company. This seems to be a reliable secondary source that can be used to expand the article so that a merge may not be needed. Rigadoun (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BritPod[edit]

Unsourced article about a podcast that does not establish notability as per WP:WEB. Only 80 unique ghits, so verifiability and notability is suspect. Orphaned since October 2006. MER-C 12:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I can't see any reliable independent sources for this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Empire (Asimov)[edit]

This article is based on a fictional subject which is written completely in in-universe style and has no reliable sources or notability outside of the subject at all. The page fails WP:FICT. Blueanode (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most famous works of a notable author, spanning a dozen or more books. The tone of an article is not grounds for deletion, but rather improvement. If there are no supplied references, that is just a matter of finding them, not deleting the article. WP:FICT has a statement information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise, so in this case, I'll use WP:SOFIXIT rather than calling for deletion. Yng varr 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article fails WP:V, WP:FICT and WP:NOT#PLOT, in addition to which there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of the Asimov canon. Without these sources, the Empire should be viewed simply as a stock locational setting for his stories; no context or analysis is provided to suggest otherwise. If Yngvarr can fix the article, good for him, but unless he knows of any secondary sources, his keep argument is not supported by evidience of real-world notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well, User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has made huge improvements into the article, so I guess that let's me off the hook :) I'd suggest prior debaters in this AfD please re-review the article. Yng varr 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvarr - I think sections such as the final paragraph (George Lucas used...) could probably be expanded and sourced - I'll take a look for sources when I get home this evening shas (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems not to have looked for sources, as he is supposed to before wasting our time. See, for example, Google Books. Just skimming the first page of hits, I see The Galactic Empire was established as a convention in modern SF by Isaac Asimov.... The matter is evidently notable and the article would be easy to improve. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHas no real-world notability outside of a fictional setting Whitstable (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even aside from the improvements to the article since the AfD, based on due-dilligence research the nominator should have done I might add, Colonel Warden has noted the existance of sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The other issues raised by nominator are reasons to clean up, not delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs some cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Articles that span multiple works in a "universe" are not forbidden (e.g. The Force and all the other minutiae in Star Wars), and Asimov and his works are among the most notable in science fiction writing TheBilly (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted above, there is ample proof of notability, as this is one of the most well known concepts from one of the top two or three science fiction writers ever. To get an idea of the type of treatment the subject can receive, consider the featured article Three Laws of Robotics - based on the same universe, with similar real world information. Xymmax (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this article has multiple sources, it has real world notability for being the model for which all other space opera Earth-based governments are based on (the Federation from Star Trek, the Earth Empire from Doctor Who and extra-galactic the Empire from Star Wars) and it is roughly analogous to Tolkien's Middle-Earth in terms of how it is used by the author in multiple books. Not to mention the author is question is Issac Asimov. Web Warlock (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the reasons given for deletion are sufficient for deletion. Being about a fictional subject isn't grounds for deletion. Being written entirely in-universe is grounds for an inuniverse tag, not an AfD. Reliable sources are available to demonstrate notability. Rray (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This major aspect of Asimov's work has been discussed by many third parties. This shouldn't have come to AfD without other steps outlined above being taken first. Nick mallory (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know there's a movement afoot to eliminate 99% of all articles on "fictional universe" topics, but this particular topic, relating to a large number of works by an undeniably notable author (inarguably the most notable SF author in fact), places this within the 1% that are untouchable. If the article is lacking anything, that's a content issue. WP:SNOW, indeed. 23skidoo (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To echo one more time, this was one of the most notable science-fiction writers ever's most developed themes. That the article doesn't show that yet is a failing of the article, not the subject. This needs to be built on, not deleted.The Zig (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Webwarlock, others. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of two important series in science fiction. 75.46.106.222 (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terran Alliance[edit]

This article fails WP:FICT it is based on a fictional subject which is written completely in in-universe style and lacks reliable sources, it has no notability or importance in the real world. Blueanode (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional organisation that is not notable outside of the comic book that it appears in. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as this stock scifi alliance has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability per Blueanode. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article asserts notability and reliable sources clearly exist, but just need to be added. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references shown in this search, please identify specific pages we are to look at. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The numerous ones that have "Terran Alliance" in them, such as [34], [35], etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one link to the production studio and one link to a wiki, how does this show notability? Taemyr (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not 'vote' twice on a Afd, Gavin. Edward321 (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, though not for the nominator's reasons. Article claims that 'comic books, video games and a feature film' are in production, but there is no indication when or even if these will ever be produced. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Taemyr (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irish national football team results[edit]

This is a collection of every match the Irish national football team has ever played. As established before, this is unsuitable, Wikipedia is not a statistics minutiae database, not RSSSF, this fails WP:NOT. Punkmorten (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 12:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Keep - Having seen other arguments, I have to say the reasons for keeping these articles far outweigh the reasons for deleting them. – Pee Jay 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I know other Crap exists is not an argument but what about England national football team results, England national football team games - 1870s, England national football team games - 1880s, England national football team games - 1890s & England national football team games - 1900s? There's also a whole category of Scottish resuts. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia should be not about deleting articles. It should be about expanding knowledge. This list is better then the equivalent article on Rsssf and includes more games and more info. If you delete these you will also have to delete above articles as well. The fact that several similar articles for other national teams also exist demonstrates a demand and shows they are not unprecedented. Djln --Djln (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. The similar articles for England and Scotland could do with being nominated too. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand upon my reasoning, lists can generally be one of three types: those that bring together a group of articles on a certain subject (e.g. List of Manchester City F.C. managers), those that act as a timeline (e.g. the articles in Category:Seasons in football (soccer) by country) and those that bring together a finite set of items not notable enough for their own articles (e.g. lists of minor characters in TV series). Some lists include more than one of these elements, but all have (or should have) one thing in common: placement in a wider context. These articles do not provide context, and hence IMO they fall into the realm of "indiscriminate collection of information". Similar information exists in articles in the football seasons by country category (e.g. 1888-89 in English football), but placed a wider context. The place for this sort of information is the timelines YYYY-YY in Irish football, not a standalone article. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are clearly not merely an "indiscriminate collection of information"; they provide the only details on WP of these matches - until the YYYY-YY in Irish football articles have been created, the lists of results are an important resource and should be kept. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they fall under criteria three. There is a finite list of X matches Ireland have played, and each individual match is not notable for its own entry. Peanut4 (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These articles should be kept. As pointed out, they are other similar articles on Wikipedia and I think all these articles provide a good source of information. Wikipedia should be about providing information not deleting it. WP:NOT#STATS is there to avoid confusing lists of stats and poor readability. I don't think these articles are like this. If people think they are too statistical why not add in prose about each year to improve them rather than to delete them. Abc183 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If deleted how does a list of FA Cup Final results, play-off final results, League Cup final results, etc, etc, fall into this? Peanut4 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact what's the difference between the above Irish, English and Scottish entries and the current plethora of X F.C. season 2007-08? Peanut4 (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the Category:Seasons in football (soccer) by year articles do not include a list of all results, and do include lots of other info (at least the good ones, e.g. Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08; not the bad ones, e.g. Clyde F.C. season 2007-08) jnestorius^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08 does not include a list of results and is also a very good entry. While Clyde F.C. season 2007-08 fits perfectly the explanation in WP:NOT#STATS of "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers" since half the entry is not even correctly labelled. Peanut4 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW 2007 New England Patriots season and 1972 Miami Dolphins season are currently linked from the front page ITN. jnestorius^(talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We frequently have match results at this level of detail with respect to specific tournaments, so the only real difference here is that they are also tabulated for one individual national team across all years. I don't think that violates WP:NOT. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Punkmorten says: "As established before, this is unsuitable": Could you point me to where this was established before? WP:NOT#STATS says "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." As Abc183 says, that's not a strong argument for deleting this instance. Really what's needed is a discussion at WP:NOT involving the various sports wikiprojects about the notability and inclusivity criteria for sports results. Until that time, these pages are among the better examples of that genre currently included, and deserve a stay of execution. jnestorius^(talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep these have been hived off from the main article and are readable, an international is more notable than a club side. My primary concern would be copyright, while a small subsection would qualify as fair use, I dont know if a record in it's entirity would Fasach Nua (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While organisations can certainly copyright lists of future fixtures, I wouldn't think you could copyright lists of results of matches which have occurred, as they are a matter of historical record..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the baseball people took some almanac to court over publishing their results and won, I dont know enough about US copyright law to make a determination, and I dont have enough of an interest in baseball to know much about this case Fasach Nua (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the result of this discussion is keep, I would propose listing them at potential copyright problems to have someone with a greater familiarity with copyright law to have a look at them Fasach Nua (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Daemonic Kangaroo (assuming the equivalent England Results pages and/or the similar Club Statistics by Season are not soon nominated for the same prospective fate as the Irish versions). To me, WP:NOT#STATS appears to refer specifically to lists within written articles, and as such the results are not indiscriminate collections either. Ref ^(chew)(do) 01:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --VS ^talk 07:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockhead (Flash Animation)[edit]

Unsourced article about a Flash cartoon that does not establish notability. 2130 ghits, most of which is usual blog/game site cruft. MER-C 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Borders on speedy as it doesn't assert notability anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept on Wikipedia because there are no other wiki pages about blockhead please keep it!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigBurlyBear (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please seeWhat not to argue about in an AFD, this is a non-argument. Pharmboy (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This article has been deleted countless times. It should be protected from further creation so that this process doesn't have to be repeated numerous times like it has in the past.--71.231.7.20 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 not established. --VS ^talk 07:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Los[edit]

A {{notability}} tag was placed four months ago, and there was nothing added that really established notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMG. Macy's 123 review me 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, also fails WP:V, no reliable sources exist [or at least I couldn't find any!] ><RichardΩ6 12 11:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his group, Rich Boyz, which has notable members.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything salvageable and citeable to Rich Boyz. Bash Kash (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --VS ^talk 07:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LG VX9400[edit]

Non-notable product. Reads as an advertisement, and Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This phone has too few substantial third-party sources to support a Wikipedia article; reviews don't convey notability. Mikeblas (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've got this phone, and it really is an outstanding piece of hardware. But that doesn't mean it's notable, and it has too few reliable sources. So, Delete. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—adequate references available; appears notable. Spacepotato (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a celphone catalog. No proof of notability. Edison (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, enough sourcing to show the article could be expanded with more independent sources. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom or at least redirect to LG Electronics. Wikipedia is not a directory is the link about the policy. The article itself is really lack of verifiable reliable sources to become an independent article. Dekisugi (talk) 10:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The article has references and the product itself has some notability in Korea and US. If anyone search it with googling, he/she can hardly say that the product is lack of notability and sources.--Appletrees (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its unique form-factor makes it notable and the sources seem quite adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 full of lies. DS (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Gagnon[edit]

Likely hoax. Cited sources contradict assertions of notability made in the article. slakr^\ talk / 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) The three delegates for district 31, according to the Maryland state government website, are Kipke, Schuh, and Don Dwyer, Jr., not Gagnon. [36] Bruxism (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax. It appears he voted for something before he was elected. --DeadlyAssassin (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a quick look at the results for that election shows that this is WP:BOLLOCKS. Lankiveil (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clearly a hoax, even the links in the article show that, as noted above. The good thing is that this was caught immediately. Remember when these types of articles would hang around for a couple months before someone noticed :) ? Xymmax (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. An eye should be kept on the creator, too, as he doesn't appear to be all that sociable. JuJube (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could an admin speedy delete this please? I have removed all the information that is verifiably false from the "article", and added qualifiers to other portions. The whole thing is clearly a hoax. I think this needs to be SNOWed as something a teenager made up about himself one afternoon. 24.182.64.206 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW and nomination withdrawn. Mr.Z-man 01:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bunscoill Gaelgagh[edit]

~~Non notable school that fails guidelines in WP:SCHOOL. STORMTRACKER 94 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)~~ I withdraw this nom. STORMTRACKER 94 00:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —DeadlyAssassin (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Due to lack of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listing incomplete nomination. –Pomte 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not a reason for deletion as per WP:SCHOOL. References should be added to prove notability. --DeadlyAssassin (talk) 09:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I am bemused as to why this article should ever have been nominated in the first place. A quick read of the school's website reveals that the school is quite unique. It is the only primary school in the whole world which teaches its children in the Manx language. Sources exist to expland the article, eg here. Searches are complicated because the Manx name has only been in use for the last few years and the school was previously known as St John's School. Dahliarose (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is exactly the type of school that needs an article on Wikipedia. I agree this is an obvios article for help and assistance. I assume the Afd was a mistake. Can you please confirm this by withdrawing the nomination. Victuallers (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a unique school and as such hugely notable. I am AGF and assuming that the nominator missed that it is the only school that teaches solely in the Manx language. TerriersFan (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per dahliarose. Nominator: please withdraw your nom, as it was obviously an honest mistake. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above. —dima /talk/ 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ILIKEIT if nothing else... c'mon, it's a Manx-language school! How cool is that. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...that Bunscoill Gaelgagh is the only primary school that teaches only in the Manx language? by TerriersFan and Victuallers nom. Victuallers Nominated today ... please help! Article is now a "start" and linked in to the two existing articles it had on it in two other languages. Victuallers (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Victuallers. This is an obvious nomination for a Did you Know and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. You and Terriers Fan have done a brilliant job. Can the nominator now withdraw the AfD? Dahliarose (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon futher review, this looks like a good enough article. (And the Manx thing is pretty cool, too.) STORMTRACKER 94 00:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard (Jimmy Neutron character)[edit]

Fails WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. There is no current assertion for dealing with the in-universe details which provide a combination of plot summary and trivia. I would recommend cleaning up the current elaborate character list, then cite its sources with real world information. Prod removed for both articles (Goddard, Carl Wheezer) although such plot details are assumed to be referenced to the work itself and do not usually require specific cites.

Also nominating the following related article(s):

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FullMetal Falcon (talk • contribs) December 11, 2007

Listing incomplete nomination. –Pomte 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Goddard to Jimmy Neutron, Keep Carl Wheezer. I am a big fan of the show, but Goddard is just Jimmy's pet robot dog and isn't a big character (although bigger than most TV pets). Carl is one of the major characters in the show though. TJ Spyke 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both nothing more then original research plot summaries. Ridernyc (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep per TJ Spyke Hobit (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real probability of notability, unwieldy search term. Maybe a line in a disambiguation list for "Goddard".Kww (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep, or I will have no Pikachu!' I edited this! Keep it! --Pikachu of the Monopoly game 02:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC) (it's me, PrincessKirlia. How do you like my new signature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessKirlia (talk • contribs)
Delete both - they clearly fail the standards laid out at WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both, provided they are better sourced with secondary sources they are both notable characters and have major roles in the show. NewYork483 (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sathiala[edit]

... --Magus05 ^(talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks any reliable sources, and notability is severely questionable. The "..." was intended as sarcasm - if you look at the article you should see what I mean. It's copy/pasted from a domain of the same name, but doesn't look to be official in any sense of the word. --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and completely re-write - It's a real place with a real population. All towns and villages are notable regardless of size. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of being bold and "cleaning up" the article by removing all unverified information. All that remains is speculated location reported by [sathiala.com], although it doesn't appear to be very reputable. If it is indeed true that all villages are notable, then I'd prefer it wasn't just a copy/paste from a website. --Magus05 ^(talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listing incomplete nomination. –Pomte 08:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clearly a real place [37] and a sackful of AfDs have shown that real places are held to be notable. Nick mallory (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Real places are automatically notable. Pharmboy (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Real places are indeed always notable per consensus. There was a recent AfD in which an article about a place was deleted for being a hoax, but this passes WP:V. It doesn't matter if there are hundreds of thousands of tiny villages in India - they should all theoretically be notable - they just have to pass WP:V as existing as a census-designated place.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. Passes WP:V. --Oakshade (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deluxe Corporation[edit]

I do not believe this article should be deleted, but another editor does and has speedied this article I just created. I am putting it here to let the community at large speak and give the article a fair shot Chris (クリス) (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, you didn't establish its notability. You should read the notability guideline for companies which was linked to by one of those templates you removed TheBilly (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did, see comments below. Chris (クリス) (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not. You made a claim of notability which saves it from speedy, but you didn't prove its notability, because you only had a blurb and self-published sources. My comment refers to the version that existed when I made that comment, not a future version that you hadn't written yet. This revision: [38]. I'm not contesting its notability, I'm responding to your complaint about its nomination, explaining to you why there was a nomination. (Notice I abstained from a vote, and merely made a comment) TheBilly (talk) 09:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found these newspaper articles on Newsbank:

Dee DePass. "Deluxe debt is cut to junk". Star Tribune. August 10, 2006. 2D.
Dee DePass. "Deluxe confirms loss, cuts dividend; stock jumps". Star Tribune. Jul 28, 2006. 2D.
Denise Crosby. "Check this out: Just how secure is your identity?" The Beacon News (Aurora, IL). June 7, 2006. 8. ("But chances are, you still pull out the trusty old check book from time to time. And chances are, it comes from Deluxe, which promotes itself as 'the most popular checks in the world.' The company also like to think of itself as pretty darn secure, as well.... Kappie Swanson shakes her head when she hears that spiel....")
Dee DePass. "Deluxe net skids 36%, pushing stock down 12%". Star Tribune. October 28, 2005. 2D.
Don Eriksson. "NEBS sold to Deluxe Corp. in Minnesota - Local personnel changes are expected". Groton Landmark (Mass.). May 21, 2004.
Neal St. Anthony. "CEO praises Deluxe restructuring - Blanchard says situation is `encouraging' as transformation continues". Star Tribune. June 6, 1996. 1D.
"Write a check and think of PBS". Chicago Tribune. June 8, 1995. Tempo, 5. (" The two stations have licensed the rights to the programs 'Nature,' 'Nova,' 'This Old House,' 'The Victory Garden' and 'Great Performances' to the Deluxe Corporation, which is producing a line of consumer checks. It's the first time the nation's largest check printer has entered into a licensing agreement with a non-profit organization...")
Suzanne L. MacLachlan. "Cartoon Characters Animate Check Sales". Christian Science Monitor. August 19, 1993. Economy, 9. ("The Deluxe Corporation in St. Paul, Minn., the largest supplier of checks in the United States, recently developed a new line of checks featuring cartoon or comic strip characters such as Bugs Bunny, the Flintstones, and Garfield...")

Zagalejo^^^ 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so long as one or two links to independent mentions of the company's significance are added. Alloranleon (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the editor who marked for speedy deletion. There are no references cited beyond the company site, and to me it read like an advertisement. --DeadlyAssassin (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish people had better instincts. If an article says that a company has been around for over ninety years and is worth more than a billion dollars, it's probably wise to do some research before nominating it for deletion. Zagalejo^^^ 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hey we all live and learn. WP:DBN --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 11:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The largest and most well-known check printer in America is pretty notable to me (is reminded to order some new checkbooks from this article, actually). The references above establish the notablility of the company and I'm sure much more can be found beyond that. Nate · (chatter) 10:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is a publically listed company (NYSE: DLX), for which there is a large body of primary and secondary sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm very surprised this was speedied. Deluxe is definitely a notable company. matt91486 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely notable. While I recognize the antipathy to WP:SPAM, this should be tempered with a zeal to improve articles that pass basic notability criteria. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major player with revenues of $1.6 billion Fg2 (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and improve. --Drhlajos (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Also in obvious need of citations and expansion (I just added a fact tag). Wikidemo (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable company, at least in North America. —Travis ^talk 00:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Magno

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — sorry, didn't see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magno (2nd nomination) --slakr^\ talk / 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magno[edit]

May fail notability requirements for music and notability requirements for people, but I could be missing something. Does not cite reliable, verifiable secondary sources. Main contributor contested {{prod}} without improving article. slakr^\ talk / 08:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/Kirstin Thompson

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

The result was speedy redirected by me to Kristin Thompson. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirstin Thompson[edit]

Author of 11 books, but the only one listed is one the article for which I have just nominated for deletion below. Both articles have the same author. The only source is a blog, written by the subject. The subject may or may not be notable, but the article in its present form is not suitable for Wikipedia. Delete gadfium 08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, has received some coverage as a Tolkien scholar, though citations of her works appear meager. --Dhartung | Talk 01:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, this is the wrong spelling and there's an article at the correct one with references. --Dhartung | Talk 01:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to Kristin Thompson (action completed). JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Frodo Franchise[edit]

Highly promotional in tone, and with no source except the book itself. The article claims the book is "an important work of independent scholarship", but doesn't really say why it's notable. Delete gadfium 07:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the author is notable, now that the spelling has been corrected. I think redirecting the book to the author is a suitable outcome.-gadfium 08:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First several pages of non-wiki ghits are all sales sites or blogs; not coming up with evidence of notability. --Fabrictramp (talk) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. All sites I can find are ads. -Djsasso (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kristin Thompson. Limited notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect if that article is kept, otherwise delete. Fails the general notability guideline as lacking third-party sources, and the article even admits to being based on the author's own research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it describes the book as being based on the author's own research, which one hopes is true. --Dhartung | Talk 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misery (Band)[edit]

Contested prod. Can't seem to find any sources about them, and can't seem to find any information about albums. Carados (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only thing there have ever done that might be considered notable is they played some shows with some notable bands. They were most likely just the local opener hired by the promoter. Ridernyc (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Pharmboy (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability through any of the WP:BAND criteria at all. No awards, no major label association, no well-known members, etc TheBilly (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails wp:music. Funeral 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Fails WP:V.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Gun and the Order of the Six-S[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable DVD release. Seems to be self promotion, but thats just me. Carados (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for this inconvenience caused, I would like to explain that this is an uncompleted title, and we, the production company, will take our time and improve the article as soon as possible. Please allow us to enrich the article. We apologise again. Thomas Wong (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the production company, that constitutes a conflict of interest. Jfire (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could list a ton of reason but the admited self promotion and COI is more then enough reason on it's own. Ridernyc (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable - no third party sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, self-promotion. Jfire (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a concern to all everyone here, I've included some of the positive comments left on the blogs of Hong Kong. If you may, please check it out on the latest version of the article. Thomas Wong (talk)

You should read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Blogs can not be used as references for Wikipedia articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the best we have got is the blogs of Hong Kong? --T-rex 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the album, already done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clowns (Can You See Me Now?)[edit]

Tag to speedy delete was not approved; however, the article fails to assert any notability per WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Further, one (or more) similar articles created about this group were just deleted, which is why I nominated this entry originally for speedy deletion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robot_(t.A.T.u._song). Mh29255 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to 200km/h in the Wrong Lane. Will ^(talk) 12:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 200km/h in the Wrong Lane per Will. Alloranleon (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected it per WP:BOLD as a valid search term. This AfD can now be closed.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the redirection and closing of this AfD. Mh29255 (talk) 06:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merri Creek World War 2 bunker[edit]

This is a contested prod. This 'bunker' seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability and none of the references the article is based on are reliable sources. The article and its references basically say that this is a tunnel filled with rubble in suburban Melbourne, Australia which might be linked to a bunker complex. However, the references are all simply reports of claims made in December 2002 by the amateur archeologists who were excavating this tunnel and do not include any comments from experts or other secondary sources. In the references the amateurs claim that the tunnel might be linked to a larger network of bunkers, but there is no reference which says that anything has come out of that speculation in the subsequent five years. Moreover, none of the three references seems to qualify as a reliable source - one (ozatwar.com) is a self-published website which only cites the amateur archeologists as sources and the other two are radio interviews with the amateurs excavating the tunnel in which they make wild claims without citing any evidence (not even the Australian Army would leave a bunker full of weapons in the middle of suburban Melbourne) and casually note that the Australian military has no knowledge of the large bunker complex they claim was built underneath Melbourne.

In short, the article does not assert that this is anything more than a tunnel and a bunker which has been partially excavated and no reliable evidence of notability is provided. Many millions of similar structures must have been constructed around the world, and I doubt that any of them are notable. Another editor has already moved the article's content to Westgarth (Victoria) (the suburb the tunnel is located in), and it might not even be worth including there given the tunnel's overall lack of notability and the five-year old cystal ball gazing which the article is based on. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: On reading the references it would appear that the name "bunker" rather understates its role; it may have been a major subterranean defence network, and certainly more than a simple pillbox. If there were other underground WW2 defence networks it woud make sense to grow it into a broader article, but in the absence of this a single article makes sense. There are plenty of other articles of this ilk held in WP, see: Dymchurch Redoubt, Fort Denison, and the various subterranea britannica links. Ephebi (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The references do not support that claim - they're basically 5 year old quotes from the people excavating the tunnel in which they speculate on its purpose without citing any actual research to support their views. The article does not state that the bunker complex they hoped to locate has actually been found in the subsequent five years, so it may not exist. This tunnel isn't comparable to a world-famous fort in the middle of Sydney Harbour. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An underground defence network built in Oz is clearly notable. Articles over the last few years in "The Age" have hinted at a largescale underground network (try googling - lots of hits). Some WP projects (also Google Maps etc.) have put in quite a bit of effort of into tracking this sort of thing, I don't see why Oz won't be different one day. In the absence of any broader article on this topic, the article stands, IMHO. On a point of order, can you please be careful about re-editing your previous comments. Your 10 edits to this AfD makes it very hard to actually understand what it you have said before, or what you are changing or restating. Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edits - my initial nomination was a bit vauge and I was trying to clarify why I think that this article is on a non-notable topic. I tried to be mindful of your comments when I edited the nomination so that what you were responding to remained unchanged. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Five years ago some amateur archeologists dug where someone remembered there having been a tunnel during WW2. The references only cite these same few persons saying what they believe the tunnel/bunker "might" contain or might once have contained. It is all crystal ball speculation about what they are going to find, and it dates back 5 years. No independent and reliable sources such as the Australian government or qualified archeologists. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Edison (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether the claims of the bunker are true or not, this topic is still the subject of reliable secondary independent sources like the ABC's Radio National Breakfast [39] and Stateline [40] (btw, an interview is in fact "coverage" of a subject). Just by its enigma, it's notable. Any unverified claims need to be written as such, but that's a reason for re-writing, not deleting. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all speculation and conjecture. The interview "coverage" is what was already said - a couple amateurs (one is a lawyer, I guess) who are speculating that these tunnels MIGHT be bunkers. And this speculation happened five years ago, with nothing happening in the meantime - did they give up their quest? If anything, an article about this "project" could be written, although I would vote against that one, too. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this could be easily expanded to be like the Bankstown Bunker article, etc. JRG (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What sources can be drawn upon to do this? Nothing comes up on Google other than old speculation about the tunnel by the excavators. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability, inadequate sources to support expansion.ALR (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unnotable, uncategorised, unfinished etc etc etc. --Drhlajos (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo tourism[edit]

This article has had a tag noting that it does not meet the 'general notability guideline' for more than 3 months. The phrase 'Neo tourism' has not been shown to be commonly used in any notable setting, and the article reads very much like text written simply to promote travel-related business. The only references are non-neutral links also connected to the tourism industry. This one should go. Brando130 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I dont think it is a non-notable article. There are enough references-Rustam 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have to have the last word (so apologies in advance) , but I can't read that and not point out that none of those 'references' seem to even use the term Neo tourism (as opposed to, maybe, just saying 'new tourism') Brando130 (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Possible move to Wiktionary, The article could be kept and probably moved to Wiktionary. It seems to be more like a definition -Rustam 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Word invented in a marketing department, full of marketese inside. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pavel Vozenilek.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki. A Google search reveals at least a couple hits that the word is being used - most probably a neologism (ha!), let them fight it out there. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki. Agree with Tanthalas39.147.175.98.213 (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cedarview Middle School[edit]

procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This page has an interesting history - PROD-Redirect-RFD:keep-return to stub-PROD:seconded-AFD. The latest PROD nominator stated "Non-notable elementary school. Listing entry. There are at least 1,000,000 primary schools in the world." The article lost most of its content as a result of its conversion to redirect and back, as evidenced by the diff between the two PROD'd article states. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think I saw the lengthier version. Had I seen it, I would have placed a merge-school tag instead. Now that we are here, let me just say that I don't think that having a "bright blue roof" or even holding a "world record for Largest Simultaneous Yo-yo" (unsourced) are enough for this school to have its own page. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (schools). They did set a world record, but it's not a very widely known record and there's no references about it. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Merge, The school is included in the template. Maybe it could be merged with another article -Rustam 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what if it is included in the template. There are about 50 other redlink schools in there as well. Find an article to move it to and I might say merge, but at the moment, I say delete.Tavix (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DoubleBlue. I have to say, it really is a great article now, so good work. Tavix (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded it. Verifiable and NPOV plus: in 2007 Guinness Book of World Records (p. 7 apparently), winner of 2004 national flag football championship and bronze medal at world championship, recognised in community for Walkathon for adults with multiple disabilities. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - great work by User:DoubleBlue has provided the reliable, independent secondary sources needed to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. And great work, DoubleBlue! JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good job of referencing it and expanding it. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of sources have been added. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by DoubleBlue, great work. RFerreira (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the home of a former 2004) flag football national champion team. Good references by DoubleBlue! --Patar knight (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark data[edit]

Constested prod. Non-notable neologism. Carados (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how it's a one liner, I think a deletion is in order. Lesser Shadow (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn... Don't most articles start as a one liner. Also, why is the concept non-notable? Could you explain why you would consider it a neologism. Best regardsJoseane (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a recently coined term not yet in the dictionary. Most articles start as "stubs" (short articles), but that doesn't mean that there's absolutely no standards for new articles. An article about a phrase has to be more than a definition otherwise it should be deleted per WP:NOT#DICT, and in this case, WP:NEO TheBilly (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This term immediately brings to mind another neologism, dark fiber. Give it some time for the original contributor (or others) to flesh this out into an article that explains the importance, utilization, controversy, etc of dark data in science (it was given some attention in Wired magainze, apparently, so there seems to be a good possibility reliable coverage can be scrounged up). If it turns out that can't be done, and the article ends up only a definition and etymology, then delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NEO TheBilly (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dark Fiber" is much less clear though. Wouldn't you say?Joseane (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unreferenced new term. Not notable enough to be moved to Wiktionary -Rustam 07:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a reference: Freeing the Dark Data of Failed Scientific Experiments. You're welcome. TheBilly (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. The debate is interesting. Both words are clear and the concept has clarity. Doesn't that immediately make it not a neologismJoseane (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Also i feel it could be more appropriate for Wiktionary -

Rustam

10:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What I am actually meaning to say is that the references are too few and the word itself seems to have been coined by an organization and is not in significant public use. So firstly, it not notable enough to be included.Even if were to be, then I dont think Wikipedia is the appropriate place for words and definitions-

Rustam

11:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I've added the url of the source in question, so - as noted above - we can confirm that the term is at least real. However, one source does not an article make. I can find another reference to dark data here, but it seems to refer to contingency operation of data centers (as in "lights-out" operation), rather than unreleased research data. I'd recommend we give some time to expand the article, and re-evaluate after, say, two weeks?, but I'm not sure that extra time would provide additional material with which to expand the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice against recreation should new sources arise. Note that the Wired article says, This information — call it dark data — must be set free. Obviously the author is coining this term on the fly, or at the least introducing a term which is not otherwise widely understood. Virtually all other references I find in a quick google are blog-ish and a great many of them refer specifically back to that article. Personally, I have never heard the term before, and am in a field in which it is highly relevant. If and when this term gains traction in the mainstream scientific literature, an article would be more appropriate. bikeable (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still neologism. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "dark data" can be described as a neologism because "dark data" self defines. If you can accept "dark fibre" which is far more obscure then you have to accept "dark data" for the universal quality of application. OK, the bit about "must be set free" is a little on the garish side. Also, the concept is in "general use" though the use of the term may not be. Does anybody not understand what it denotes? Best to all.Joseane (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I've just done some digging around, and found three more refs, which I added, all prior to the Goetz article. The phrase is a pretty obvious analog of "dark matter", and I suspect it will be re-coined from time to time even if this current version dies out. It is useful and attention getting. In terms of real notability, though, there's not actually much there yet. Tim Ross·^talk 13:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK, so have we accepted the article on the grounds that it will be re-created?Joseane (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete these should have been bundled. This is a colossal waste of time. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vahki[edit]

Original research plot summary about a non-notable race of fictional creatures. The only sources provided are a blog and other primary sources. There is also no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone needs to read WP:BUNDLE. Tavix (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like bundling AFD's, because someone will end up coming along and complaining that they are bundled. I think every article should have its chance to have it's own debate . Ridernyc (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you gave the exact same reason to delete all of them, and they all fit under the bionicle category so why not? They will probably all have the same responses as well. Oh, and I say Delete Tavix (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lesson learned from the Warcraft AFD's. Ridernyc (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete I realize there was no participation except the nom, but this is one of several Bionicle-related AFd's that are identical in argument and really should have been a group nom. Concensus is clear that these articles are not notable.

Krana[edit]

Original research plot summary about a non-notable race of fictional creatures. The only sources provided are a blog and other primary sources. There is also no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahi (Bionicle)[edit]

Original research plot summary about a non notable race of fictional creatures. The only sources provided are a blog and other primary sources. There is also no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional characters with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 12:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. We don't need Bionicle articles clogging up the mainspace. Tavix (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is my favorite because it tells tons of info about rahi the animals of Bionicle. You also can't find the information that this article has anywhere else on Wikipedia so I think it should be kept.Swirlex (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has information not found on the Bionicle Wiki article. Ridernyc, this article is not a plot summary. Tavix, the English Wikipedia has-at this moment-2,159,323 articles. One more won't hurt and one less won't help. But if you want to clear mainspace, then go check out Unbeatable Warrior.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thi is a Major part of the Bionicle franchise (just as important as the Toa or Makuta pages). Therefore it should be saved. Plus, if we delet every page that is'nt about something that's real, we'd by deleting a HUGE portion of Wikipedia. I say keep it. Toa of Gravity January 6, 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do you need secondary sources for popular fiction which is still in the process of being published? I don't think Bionicle will be an academic subject any time soon. There is no plot summary; this is 100% equivalent to listing e.g. all the various creatures in Tolkien's fictional universe. If you also imagine that Tolkien never published such a thing as a novel, but rather a comparatively uncoordinated assembly of movies, comics and novellas, you might see why a list such as this fills a function. The "real world context" can be found on a number of other Bionicle pages.Pelotard (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is also my favourite character of Bionicle. But I'm not living in Bionicle universe and this isn't Bionoicle wiki. Rahi is not a notable subject out of Bionicle world. Secondary sources? Well you don't need to find peer-reviewed academic journals to tell the story about it. News and columns about how this character was created, the story behind its creation, who developed the main idea of its story, etc. can all be considered as reliable sources. At the current form, all sources link to unreliable sites, which fails to assure verifiability. It's enough for a deletion. Dekisugi (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails multiple policies and guidelines. Note to the nominator; similar articles could probably be PRODded. BLACKKITE 01:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bohrok[edit]

Original research plot summary about a nonotabe race of fictional creatures. The only sources provided are a blog and other primary sources. There is also no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, MORE bioniclecruft? Good grief. Not notable in the real world, no secondary sources establishing notability, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

there are around 50 Bionicle articles that need to take a trip through AFD. I'm nominating them one at time because some are better then others. Ridernyc (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and it feels like I've typed out the same deletion rationale for every single one. Keep up the good work though! Lankiveil (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article should be merged by interested editors per discussion with attribution to this article for GFDL compliance. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moties[edit]

Article simply regurgitates plot from text; it makes no assertion of real-world significance beyond "Hey, these things were in the book." Subject has no notability of its own, and there's no technical reason to fork out this article. --EEMIV (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Mote in God's Eye, as they're not notable in the real world. Lankiveil (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Merge with one of the source books' Wiki pages. The information here is compiled from many snippets scattered over two books and gives an accurate summary of a fictional species. It needs sub-editing rather than deleting. How many fictional species are notable in the real world? - they can certainly be used to illustrate potential real-world threats. Denham062 (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into The Mote in God's Eye, trimming heavily and rewriting to explain the context. I've read (and even written) some external sources which use the Moties as an analogy to describe current-day human social or political behavior, but most are blog postings or passing mentions in a sentence or two of a larger piece. Unless references are located, I don't think the topic has enough for a standalone article under the WP:FICT guidelines, but it's well-known enough for a redirect and a section in the parent article. Since the first book is much more well-known than the second, the redirect should point there. Barno (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sure there are, they just aren't cited in the article. For example: [www.123exp-fantasy.com/t/01804208798/], the Fantasy Dictionary and Research Guide; [www.sffaudio.com/SSReviews.html], Simon and Schuster Audio Reviews. Barno (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the 123exp-fantasy bit is just a dictionary-esque definition -- not enough to sustain an article. The sffaudio is just a plot summary/review of the second book that might be worth citing/mentioning in that text's article but, again, is not sufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail WP:V at all from what I can see (and if people are going to start worrying about NOT#PLOT, there's a lot of other work to do!). There are two popular books on them. The moties are also discussed in Magill's Guide to Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature and The New Encyclopedia of Science Fiction as well, which even a cursory Google Books query reveals. Personally I'm in favor of keeping it—I don't see any obvious policy violations, it doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and it doesn't seem any more "crufty" than the hundreds of other articles on Wikipedia—but as a self-chosen anon (even a well-reasoning and long-editing one) I'm aware my opinion doesn't count for squat. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question/comment -- Are the "two popular books on them" The Mote In God's Eye and The Gripping Hand? The texts themselves are notable, and the moties as an aspect of those books warrants inclusion in those books' articles, but moties themselves do not inherit the notability of the literature in which they are part. Does Magill's or The New Encyclopedia offer anything more than an encapsulation of the books' plot/the moties' literal role? Is there material that discuss in depth -- i.e. offers sufficient material that a motie article can be more than just a stub -- how this race was conceived? their symbolic role? critics' reaction to these *characters*? --EEMIV (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's the verifiability. It's not hard to verify what is written about the moties as a fictional species. That's all I meant by it. Anyway, here's a thought: if this was named "List of Motie castes from The Mote in God's Eye", would it warrant deleting? It's apparently quite common to have "List of X" for further details about creatures or characters that would otherwise make main articles too long. As for inheriting the notability of the parent product—it seems that this happens all the time. Star Wars is notable, Chewbacca is notable, but is Attichitcuk notable? How about Lumpawarrump? By definition, is anyone on the List of minor Star Wars characters notable? Is it worth spending much time worrying over? Anyway, the article is clearly a detailed elaboration which could be merged back into an original article, but I don't see why it couldn't just be labeled as such a little more clearly. I don't see any strong reason to delete the content, personally. And hey—could we write an article about critics' reactions, authorial intent? Maybe. But nobody has on here yet. And deleting it sure won't get that. I always interpreted the WP:V policy and etc. as being about what is potentially verifiable, writable, etc., in the long-view, "what Wikipedia could be" sort of way, not in the more narrow, "what does the article currently contain" sort of way. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should have added that it fails WP:WAF as well; the heavy in universe perspective means that there is little real-world content, context, analysis or critism of the subject matter. When an article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF as badly as this one does, it is time to transwiki elsewhere: this is not an encyclopedic article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Mote in God's Eye, as Barno has proposed, with trimming -- the article is half description and half plot details, and removing the plot details should shorten it enough for a reasonable merge. (Example -- the section on the Watchmakers not only describes them (ok) but goes into detail about the MacArthur destruction subplot (not ok, IMNSHO).) -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Denham, Barno. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out, this is one of the most iconic species of recent speculative fiction, and I have seen a number of articles with characters/races from a single or very few books. Kuralyov (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Where is the cited evidence of their iconic nature? Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a compelling reason to keep; it's a reason to delete or merge those other articles. --EEMIV (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main alien species from a double-Hugo-nominated science fiction novel noted by no less than Heinlein as one of "the best"? No question of notability there.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noclevername (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The London Eye in popular culture[edit]

This is a trivia section recently spun out of an article about The London Eye, a large observation wheel in London and, since 1999, one of the most recognisable London landmarks. The article on the attraction itself is fine but this is just a list of scenes in books, television shows and films in which the Eye is seen or (rarely) is the setting. It seems that that's all it can ever be. Tony Sidaway 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could obviously be more than just a list of references. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep per my reply to MickMacNee Alloranleon (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 08:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge. Significant uses of the Eye in PC (e.g. Doctor Who) can be recovered from the London Eye edit history and included as prose. Keeping this list or merging it back into the main article will just attract dorky "The Eye fleetingly appeared in the background of a television programme set in London" contributions. Brad (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a few exceptions this might well just be a list of movies shot in London. Ridernyc (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

143 movies set in London versus about 10, so no, it is nothing like that. And movies are not the only entry in the article, hence the name change from the original section in the parent article. MickMacNee (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, 90% of these appearances are trivial at best. Mention anything noteworthy in prose in London Eye. Lankiveil (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment from article creator Thoroughly pissed off. Most of this info was in the main article for a long time, and never attracted a prod, so why now, when the information is better presented, put in better context and added to, do people jump out of the woodwork to annihialate a good faith effort? Actions like this realy put me off contributing to WP. I formatted it preciely because you couldn't tell insignificant appearances from significant ones, but blease don't try and pretend all of the entries are insignificant, there are plenty more 'dorky' lists on WP. MickMacNee (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE above - Since you feel so strongly about this, and since the article has some (albeit marginal) merit, I'm changing my vote to Strongly Keep. On a side-note, after reviewing your talk page, you could stand to show more courtesy, and assume good faith regarding these things. :) Cheers. Alloranleon (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you mean London Overground, that conversation was between one user [41] who persists in remaining anonymous and is in constant conflict over rule-lawyering, against at least 3 established editors trying to improve that article for the better. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE above ~~It's just that your tone was a little confrontational. I mean no offense. :)~~ Then again, he does seem to fully deserve it... Eternal apologies for ever doubting you, lol. Alloranleon (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no reason to delete given. Catchpole (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some, remove others - the instances where major action takes place in or on the London Eye are worth keeping in the main article. Mere appearances on screen as part of the background do not need to be noted. Borderline cases can merely be mentioned in the other articles. Judicious care is needed to decide whether the information is needed, and if needed, where it is best presented. Ultimately, these deleted popular culture articles will be a valuable resource someday. Carcharoth (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list and directory of unassociated items with no relationship to each other than happening to have this wheel in them in some way. The things on this list have nothing in common with each other and the presence of the wheel does not create an encyclopedic relationship. "The London Eye is in it" is not a theme. Regarding the comments from the article's creator, I am sorry that you put effort into creating this unencyclopedic article, but your effort is not relevant to the list's unsuitability. Neither does the existence of other "dorky" lists (and I note that this characterization of the work of others is surprisingly uncivil given your strong feelings about your own work) does not serve to justify the existence of this list. Otto4711 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I did not create this content, it existed in the article attracting no Cfd attention until the second I spun it out in good faith. The dorky referenece is in reply to a comment above, so direct your civility comments elsewhere. Anyway, define encyclopoedic relationship - should the relevant listed articles not wikilink to the London Eye then? Lists of related wiki links are allowed under Wikipedia:NOT#_note-2. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The question here isn't "is this material suitable for an article?" Much of it is suitable, in an appropriate form, in the article from which it was taken, The London Eye. But that doesn't mean that this encyclopedia necessarily needs articles solely on this subject. This is why I, being of the opinion that as a standalone article it's unlikely to contain anything beyond a list of appearances of the wheel in film, television and book, I propose that it should be deleted again (the material of course can all go back to the article, no problem). Show me that this article can expand and illuminate the wheel as a popular culture icon, and I'll change my mind. --Tony Sidaway 04:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the formatted and unformatted versions, I think now it is now too big to put back into the article as is (accepting that some entries might be considered unneccessary). There was also a specific comment on the talk page expressing concern that this section could conceivable be added to over time and overwhelm the main article, another factor in me deciding to spin it out. I can't show you how it can expand because I can't predict the edits other editors might think to make in future. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic better here than there argument. Editors who fear that trivial junk will get added to main articles and overwhelm them make the junk someone else's problem by spinning the junk off into its own article. The problem with this course of action is that if the material is junk in the main article it is every bit as much junk in its own article. Unfortunately, once it gets spun off instead of being dealt with within the article, it becomes that much harder to get rid of the junk because the junk article can't just be edited away the way that junk content within an article can. Spinning off junk makes the encyclopedia as a whole worse, not better. Otto4711 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. This discriminate and well-organized list could just use more references. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to The Annex. Trivia articles like this would fit in better over there. *** Crotalus *** 03:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worse than IPC articles that have been deleted before. Actual use of the Eye as a major setting, e.g. Doctor Who or the Live 24 gig can be merged into prose Will ^(talk) 02:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brad's and Will's reasonings. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well fuck it, I wonder where you all were while this information existed in the main article. I hope you will all be on the watchlist to ensure none of this information is added to the concise prose section you advocate, I doubt it though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - fairly iconic. I'd be really surprised if there weren't some cinematic article or book discussing this already. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested prod, non-notable backyard wrestler. A google search for "Canadian Wrestling Crusade" returns zero non-Wikipedia google hits. Kesac (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speediest delete possible Not only does Kesac's google search have no results, but the creator, who is the only major, registered contributor, redirects his user page to this page, which reeks horribly of an auto-biography. --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 06:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Important Note The prior AfD was for a different subject, so its existence means nothing in this case. Ψν^Psi_nu 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And then Delete per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psinu (talk • contribs) 07:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Restore, then Delete it again just to be sure. Vani-tastic. Lankiveil (talk). —Preceding comment was added at 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Rain[edit]

Notability can not be established especially with the new WP:BIO. No criteria for pornographic actress fulfilled. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion was originally appended to the first nomination; I moved it to a proper "3rd nomination" page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Per WP:CSD#A7. Fails WP:BIO as nominator mentioned. Biographies have to prove themselves, we don't have to wait. Speedy it. TheBilly (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete is, qualifies as CSD A7. Lankiveil (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
comment this article has survived a previous AfD so cannot be speedy deleted. RMHED (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, oh well. In any case, it should be mentioned that the June 2, 2006 and July 28, 2006 versions (those previously submitted for deletion) both horribly fail per the current CSD A7 as well, and the two previous debates resulted in "No consensus" rather than keep. So it's only surviving thanks to 1) a technicality 2) changing standards 3) a couple bad straw polls by the mobs that happened to show up those days TheBilly (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber Rain (2nd nomination) - no new notability has come up since then. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She's just one of many non-notable porn actresses.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TGreenburgPR (talk) 09:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sc straker (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diango Hernandez[edit]

This article has been deleted from several locations before (I can only track down Diango hernandez right now; however, I believe this article is serving as nothing other than WP:COI related advertisement for the subject; it tells little about him, why he is notable, etc. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't tell if this[42] is about the same artist, but if it is, he had a display at the Polish National Gallery. I have tried searching for him and the various exhibitions in the article, and have found nothing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability; LonelyBeacon's source is promising, but alone I don't think that could prop up the article. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep per new sources. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notice from a gallery show in Germany?[43]; this is another exhibition[44]; in Helsinki[45]; his time as artist in residence at a museum/gallery in San Antonio[46]; participation in an exhibit in Sydney[47]. I think there is more. I'm no art expert, but this could be the smoking gun. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On top of what LonelyBeacon found, there's this and this. Zagalejo^^^ 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These sources seem to indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided. The article still needs some work to make it look less like a résumé, but its on the right track. RFerreira (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish heroines[edit]

List based on an arbitrary and inherently non-neutral quality. — Swpb^talk.edits 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're Turkish, they're female. Other than that, they have nothing in common. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently POV, could have been a PROD as there's no way this subjective list could be included in an encyclopedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LonelyBeacon, and also because this is inherently POV (as Hisspace notes) and would probably just attract edit wars. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsalvageably POV. Lankiveil (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete POVish -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. It was prodded twice, hence it ended up here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youmex[edit]

Reads like an advertisement for a non-notable company. Not all movies on list are mentioned in reference. Superm401 - Talk 04:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't know what that source is, but the article doesn't assert notability. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What the hell ever happened to giving a person more than one day to work on an article? The article was just created and is still being added to. It takes time to source an article when the company has been closed for about 10 years. It clearly states that it's closed now. And most of the titles on the list of productions aren't even movies. Superm401 didn't even bother to look very deeply into it before nominating as anyone who spent just a few minutes researching the titles on the list would be able to see that. Talk about a bad faith nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion nomination isn't a personal attack. I don't think the company itself is notable. A few more days working on the article isn't going to change that. Whether the animes are movies or not is orthogonal to whether the company is notable and whether they're sourced. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone say it was a personal attack? No. However, when you nominate an article that is barely getting started, and about which you obviously know nothing, you are showing your ignorance and blatant disregard for WP:AGF. The article was created less than 24 ago, less than 24 hours before you nominated it for speedy deletion and on AfD. As I said, this is a bad fatih nomination as you didn't bother to give ANY time for the article to be improved. There are no articles here which were created in a perfect state in the initial edit, and this one is no exception. Now, you've put an artificial and completely unnecessary time limit on getting this article up to snuff just because you can't be bothered to do a little research yourself on the topic. As the company ceased existence almost ten years ago, finding online references is very difficult as the web (especially in Japan) was very young then. Almost all references for this article will likely be printed materials such as magazines and books, so this bogus nomination is causing the research to (of necessity) be extremely rushed and not as thorough as it might be otherwise. As for your movies comment, you're the one who brought it up, and I was merely addressing your ignorance. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, articles don't need to be perfect when they're started. But they do need to source what information's there, and they need to be about notable topics. Superm401 - Talk 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sources are necessary, but when you don't give someone any time to source the article (by nominating it for CSD within hours of its creation, for instance), you are biting people (even if, like me, they aren't new). You threw WP:AGF out the window in this series of nominations, as well. That's the main thing that's pissed me off here. In the future, I strongly encourage you to use {{unreferenced}}, {{Unreferenced}}, {{morereferences}}, and other similar templates to mark the article rather than immediately trying to delete it. You'll certainly save all the trouble of completely unnecessary discussions such as this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I think you really need to give an article at least a little time. The one reference in English reference may assert notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, originally I was going to suggest merging to Toshiba EMI, but that one already directs somewhere else and it seems like the new EMI has nothing to do with this. Looking at some of the fairly big titles Youmex did, I think notability can be established given some time, though the company gone, it certainly won't be an easy task. Collectonian (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepand expand. Articles are written in a day. Give people some time before outright deleting their work. To me, it looks as if notability can be established. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Fg2 (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Articles should generally be left in userspace until you have good sources for them. Also you should resist the temptation to expand an article based on unreliable sources when reliable sources are unavailable; just leave it as a stub. This [48] for example appears just to be some random personal webpage. IMDB and analogous websites are also rather shady, being full of user-generated content which often ends up being false. That said, this company's list of productions alone, which is now decently well-verified (not so at the time of nomination), strongly implies that better sources exist offline (namely Japanese newspapers published while the company was in existence), so I don't have any particular objection to leaving it in mainspace in the state it's in now. cab (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that first statement, according to editorial policy no they shouldn't. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, etc. mean that we help other editors, especially new ones, improve their low-quality, unsourced/badly sourced articles, not that experienced users should be clamouring to make more additions to the pile of low-quality, unsourced/badly sourced articles we already have around here. Telling other editors what sources you've already read when you're writing an article is an extremely basic part of collaborative writing; that way they can then correct your interpretation of the sources, suggest additional ones, etc. Mainspace is not a dump for sharing unsourced personal knowledge --- that's why we have talk pages. cab (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you should also not go nominating articles that haven't even had a chance to be worked on yet. This one was marked for speedy deletion less than 9 hours after it was first created, and looking at the history shows that I was actually working on it, expanding, adding references, etc. Less than 10 minutes later, it was AfD'd. That shows incredible bad faith on the part of the nominator as he didn't even bother trying to have a discussion before tagging the article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per points by Nihonjoe. A very notable and major company which has been involved in the actual production, financing and publishing of several highly well-known works that have been published and distributed worldwide; this is irrefutable evidence on its own that cannot be denied. There are several notable and verifiable references pointing to the subject's obvious notability, including, but not limited to, published and notable sources in English and the language of origin, Japanese. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 08:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely tempting to vote keep on the grounds that an AfD an article less than a day old is a violation of WP:EP, but addressing the actual concerns, the article itself sufficiently demonstrates the notability of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's correct, just the major series like Kimagure or Nadia qualify it. But I'm a little wary - wasn't Nadia (for example) very much a Gainax series? I don't see any mention of Youmex in Nadia: The Secret of Blue Water. --Gwern (contribs) 19:52 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Good question. It looks like the creator may or may not have gotten a little lose with the listings. According to ANN, Youmex did the music production for the Nadia movie, not the series, and they don't list anything under Kimagure. Might be good to do some source checking to see if that list is fully accurate and not excessively inflated. That said, ANN does list some notable OVAs for this company, including AD Police and Bubblegum Crisis so still may be a weak keep. Also, Youmex is mentioned in The Anime Encyclopedia. I have a copy at the moment, so I'll see if any of those mentions can help clean up this article. Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are a production company, and ANN's listing are extremely bare in regard to Youmex. Many of their credits are for music production (such as the release of many soundtracks under their Futureland label: BGC, KOR, and others fall here). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they have done music production, then find real sources for them. A catalog # in an online store is not a valid source to show they produced a CD. I've reverted your undoing of the article changes. The "sources" provided do NOT meet the reliable sources requirement. Just because the word Youmex appears on the page does not mean you can presume that means Youmex produced it or had anything to do with it. And your assertion that Youmex absorbing another companies debt caused its downfall was a complete and total extrapolation from it being mentioned in massing that Youmex AND OTHERS were left dealing with that other company's debts. Collectonian (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You reverted the changes I made without bothering to read them. I reworded the various sentences to more closely follow what the references said rather than interpreting them. And as for finding more sources, have you even read anything above? Do you know how hard it is to find online sources for a Japanese company that has been defunct for almost ten years? Japan is about where the US was about 5-7 years ago when it comes to online references, and finding printed references takes a lot of time and research. Your removal of the legitimate sources that have been found so far are only hindering the effort to work on this article. As you don't seem to listen to reason, I have protected the article (NOTE: in your version, not the one I prefer) to prevent further abuse of Twinkle to revert edits that you don't like for one reason or another without even giving legitimate reasons (only indicating that you think it's vandalism, which it isn't). Note that I won't be editing the article either until you can decide what the hell you are doing. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've reworked the article to remove all the invalid sources (none really sourced anything in the article), the original research, and all titles that could not be confirmed. I've added another source that confirms most of the titles that ANN lists, as well. So those who already weight in may want to take a quick look at the updated article.[49] (adding dif link as creator has reverted and will probably undo the clean up). Collectonian (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Collectionian for providing sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also, restore sources which were removed by Collectonian as well. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those weren't real sources. See above notes. Collectonian (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. The sources were perfectly legitimate, and about the only ones which can be found for this very old topic (in internet terms). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the references were absolutely legitimate; for example, AllCinema is among the most notable Japanese references for Japanese content, and is widely used. In regards to Anime News Network, it is itself an incomplete source with certain entries even being inaccurate in several cases, so I am appalled that it is being considered the "only" source with other more legitimate and notable sources being removed. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Expand & add refs. I've had personal experience with Youmex's products. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable. Although the info on IMDB is limited, there's more in various Japanese sources. It's not that some sources don't exist, they're just old and harder to come by on the internet. Here's a source I found which links Youmex with the Eberouge computer game. As you can see, it is dated March 11, 1998. Also, I disagree with Collectonian going around deleting sources.--Endroit (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Youmex was involved in a side story game called Toriferuzu Mahō Gakuen Monogatari, producing a CD of the radio drama for the game. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, several various Japanese sources can count for the list of game, music and anime productions Youmex has produced over the years, and since it is an old company the sources will definitely be old and harder to get. A quick look-through can yield several sources, such as Pierrot's official website and here which easily verify Youmex's production of Fancy Lala, which is not accounted for by ANN, yet there are several sources which can prove otherwise. ···巌流^{? · talk to ganryuu} 14:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have placed specific inline {{cite}} references for every possible item, as well as adding the radio drama CD mentioned directly above. I have also reworded some bits to more clearly present information. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Silva[edit]

More "The Label" crap (see The Label and Fia Starr Roan, below if you're on the AfD general page). Same hype language, same recommendation to Speedy Delete. Ψν^Psi_nu 04:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No evidence of notability for movie or director. Superm401 - Talk 04:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the writer of this article. This director is listed on Internet Movie Database at imdb.com and All Movie at allmovie.com. The intention of this entry is merely to be description of the director. I have seen the film "The Label" and the documentary "Hip-Hop: The Business Behind The Music" at 2 screenings in Los Angeles and met the director. I believe this entry for this director to be a significant contribution to Wikipedia. I don't appreciate someone using the word "crap" to describe the article. That language shows that there is a bias. This discussion should remain professional and inappropriate language should not be a part of the discussion. Brennusgroup - Talk 10:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor, no secondary sources, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was - I don't even know what to say here. this is unacceptable behavior on the part of the nominator. It'll be impossible to sort this out, I'm going to make a fresh nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/The Label (2nd nomination). —Random832 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Label[edit]

Unbelievably blatant future movie PR by WP:SPA. Should be Speedy Deleted IMO. See also Fia Starr Roan. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: IP 24.20.216.95 HAS ONCE DELETED THIS AfD DISCUSSION. Appears to be tampering by person related to subject matter. PLEASE PATROL AND/OR SPEEDY DELETE! Ψν^Psi_nu 07:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MORE TAMPERING IS OCCURRING (defacto page blanking, all but headers) as of the time to the right. Ψν^Psi_nu 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is no TAMPERING: The article was being edited to conform to the complaints. And Psinu kept changing it back.

(note, User:24.20.216.95 added the above comments and has contributed to the article several times. Pharmboy (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The plug for a freebie gives it away. Spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's spam, but not enough for G11. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree on the current state of the article, but i wonder if a valid article could be made. Looks like it's way past development stage.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, i can't even access the "official site" don't let my comment stand in the way of deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability requirements for films:

- has not been released and its production was neither notable nor received any coverage;

- is not the subject of any full-length reviews or articles;

- has not received any awards, is not included in any curricula and has not been selected for inclusion in a national archive;

- no sources to indicate a unique contribution to cinema or its genre;

- is not one of the most important roles performed by any notable people (in fact, does not feature any notable people at all); and

- has not been successfully distributed in any country or region where film distribution is otherwise unlikely.

This article should be recreated if the movie is a hit post-release. Until then this is just another low-budget gangsta-rap flick. Euryalus (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article spoils the plot, which is practically a crime since "[t]his is a powerful must see film for anyone who loves Hop-Hop". Seriously, it's an ad for a non-notable movie. Superm401 - Talk 04:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the writer of this article. Someone edited my work and put in promotional language that was not in the original entry. I have tried to change it back to its original format, but the moderators keep undoing the edits. Psinu is reporting tampering, but that is not the case. Using words in capital letters such as "Tampering" and "Warning" and then recommending a speedy delete is an inappropriate scare tactic. It is my article. I am editing the article to conform to the complaints. This movie is listed on Internet Movie Database at imdb.com and All Movie at allmovie.com. The intention of this entry is merely to be description of the film. I have seen this film at a screening in Los Angeles. I believe this entry to be a significant contribution to Wikipedia. It is not intended as Spam in any way. Brennusgroup - Talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Brennusgroup. Don't worry about claims of tampering - an anonymous user blanked this AfD debate but it was easily restored. On a more important issue, a film requires non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources to be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The notability guideline for films specifically excludes the Internet Movie Database and similar sites from the definition of non-trivial coverage, because they indiscriminately list almost every film. To assist in determining the notability of this article, could I ask that you have a look at the guideline I wikilinked above and see if The Label meets the criteria?
Comment - Thanks for your comment, but please note that IMDB does not indiscriminately list films. The process is very thorough and highly regarded at this point in time. Furthermore, I have been trying to correct the article, but moderators keep reverting the article back to a version that doesn't comply with Wikipedia standards. Unwarranted spooky words such as "TAMPERING" and "WARNING" are inappropriate. The moderators need to stop reverting the article back to version that has been corrected. Furthermore, IMDB is a third party and so is All Movie Guide, Muze, and Hollywood Video (http://www.hollywoodvideo.com/movies/movie.aspx?MID=142672&LF=STL) Each of these sites have done their own write up. Hollywood Video has 4,000 stores and carries the film. These sites list the film and consider the film notable. Brennusgroup - Talk small>—Preceding comment was added at 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. The notability guideline is pretty specific on what is considered trivial coverage ... "newspaper listings of screening times and venues, capsule reviews, plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database." Being available at a local video chain like Hollywood Videos isn't really that notable either, and certainly doesn't meet the Wikipedia notability guideline.Euryalus (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When the movie receives enough coverage of reviews and critics from reliable secondary sources, then it can have a separate article in Wikipedia. At this moment, not to mention that it is a future product, the article has no warranty to be notable for a film article. I'd say delete. Dekisugi (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't appear to be the secondary sources available that indicate notability. Lankiveil (talk) 12:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~. Please also see Filmmaker Magazine at http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/filmsites/filmsites_L.php Brennusgroup - Talk —Preceding comment was added at 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete can't find any verification via wp:rs, imdb and wikipedia seem to be the only significant links. Pharmboy (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert and also per WP:CRYSTAL. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete per WP:CRYSTAL, subject clearly doesn't meet any notability criteria yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, crystal-ballism and for a healthy dose of WP:COI too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fia Starr Roan[edit]

Absolute, unabashed, blatant hype. Unless you think WP entries should contain phrases like "This film is a must see, buy the movie now..." Also see related page, The Label. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, should've been speedied. Spam, just like "The Label." - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did put in a speedy delete tag, but the Speedy Delete Overlord of the day denied it saying "indicates/asserts notability". Well, of course they would... Ψν^Psi_nu 04:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe spam has to not assert notability. The criterion says "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake, I should note that I removed a {{db-bio}} tag in view of the article's indicating/asserting notability in noting that the subject plays a non-trivial role in "a[n apparently notable] film" (for the purposes of considering assertions of notability in the context of speedy deletion requests, we generally presume that books/films/corporations/sports teams about which we have articles are notable, which does, to be sure, present problems where walled gardens, the components of which reciprocally assert notability, exist); I did not consider the applicability of G11, at the very least because the article was not tagged {{db-spam}}. For various reasons, I don't think this to meet G11 (The Label might, and upon its deletion this would likely fail A7), and for other reasons I don't know that it would be particularly useful for us to speedy as spam at this juncture, but I removed the speedy tag without respect to G11, and I, for one, probably would not bother to raise any objections were this tagged for G11. Joe 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to defend yourself/ves, folks. I'm just sayin'. Ψν^Psi_nu 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Notable" only as star in non-notable movie. Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the writer of this article. This actor is listed on Internet Movie Database at imdb.com and All Movie at allmovie.com. The intention of this entry is merely to be description of the actor. I have seen the film "The Label" and the documentary "Hip-Hop: The Business Behind The Music" at 2 screenings in Los Angeles and met the actor. I believe this entry for this director to be a significant contribution to Wikipedia. Someone other than me edited the article and added promotional hype. I removed it. This article is not intended as Spam in any way. Brennusgroup - Talk 09:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable actor. Being listed at IMDB is not usually taken as an indicator of notability. Lankiveil (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete IMDB is user input anyway, and while an important source, having a IMDB entry alone isn't enough to meet notability. To compare, the guy packing stuff in our warehouse has an IMDB page as well (swear to dog), but is not notable. Pharmboy (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; IMDb listing doesn't indicate notability. Not quite A7 material but certainly not notable yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her IMDB score is in the millions which strongly states she's not notable. TGreenburgPR (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. —Random832 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Granville[edit]

No claims of notability for this individual, except for his murder. However even his murder does not create notability (it has been reported in the media, but plenty of murders are reported). If this is finally "proved" to be "terrorism" rather than just murder, there may be a future claim to notability, but even being the victim of terrorism is not a clear claim to notability. HookOnTheWall (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If the New York Times covers your murder, you're notable. Unfortunately you're also dead, but that's another issue altogether. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Since this is created shortly, I think we should give editors time to expand the article. It receives media coverage and is notable. Chris! _ct 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to keep, not just because it was in the NYT, but also because he was a diplomat, so it has that "international incident" side to it. Whether it's "terrorism" is a semantic issue and not relevant to the deletion (though of course we can report debate on this). Superm401 - Talk 04:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to reform the article into more of a proper biography, though this is difficult because details of his career aren't really available. Superm401 - Talk 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "forming a proper biography" is not always what we need to do; in this case, the event of his death is what is notable. Some people believe we must change the article title (e.g. Murder of John Granville) but this isn't my favored position unless it's the only way to keep an article, as I believe current policy dictates proper article form in any case. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now, and yes, a deliberately killed US official is a clear claim to notability. Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Realkyhick.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why terrorism requires scare quotes. A murdered diplomat is notable by any standards, wars have been started over less. Nick mallory (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this and this might clarify the use of the quotes for you. As for a murdered diplomat always been notable, doesn't it depend somewhat on what the person is involved with? This gentleman seems to have simply worked on aid projects for USAID in the employ of the US government, rather than being a diplomat involved say defence or foreign policy. Anybody who negotiates could be called a diplomat, but this seems to be a stretch. If he had been the US Ambassador, then war might be a vague possibility, but this guy was securing radios for poor people (no direspect to him or his work). HookOnTheWall (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For Now, but being it back here if it turns out that he was just the victim of a random bungled robbery or something. If it's targeted terrorism, then it certainly is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, his work on behalf of poor Sudanese is notable and will be more so ifit was terrorism. Mikebar (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can working on behalf of poor people provide notability? Thousands, if not millions, or people work to help the poor. HookOnTheWall (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was an American diplomat. He was killed under unusual (possible terrorism) circumstances. Publicus 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If he wasn't notable before his murder, being murdered is not grounds for an article. And I really want to address "If the New York Times covers your murder, you're notable". Are you aware of how many murders are covered in the NYT daily? To suggest that that's a keep criterion is bizarre. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was terrorism (they are still investigating), then it is more notable (lots of examples in WP), and if it was a political statement even more so. See Khartoum diplomatic assassinations as an example. Some time will tell. Mikebar (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As of 1/5, it was claimed that it was terrorism so there are multiple precidents Mikebar (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable event more than a notable person. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article needs a new name and to stop claiming that it's a biography. Corvus cornix_talk 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, but that's sophistry. The article is encyclopedic. Being in a different form than you prefer is not a reason for deletion, nor anything of great urgency. Have at it. --Dhartung | Talk 01:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sophistry in the least. This is not a biography, and therefore should not be at John Granville. If kept, it should be at Murder of John Granville, since that's what it's about. Corvus cornix_talk 21:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? read this (from the main article):

Career[edit]

Granville grew up in Buffalo, New York. He was a graduate Canisius High School in 1993 and of Fordham University. In 2003, he graduated from Clark University with an Master of Arts degree in International Development and Social Change. He studied as a Fulbright Fellow in Africa. After school, Granville joined the Peace Corps and was sent to Cameroon for two years.

As a diplomat, Granville worked for the United States Agency for International Development in Kenya and Sudan. In his current assignment, he led a project to provide residents in South Sudan with 75,000 radios that could be powered by a crank generator or solar panels. The project was part of the preparations for the upcoming 2009 elections in South Sudan.^[1]

"He told his mom several times ... that it's dangerous, what he's doing, but he wouldn't want to be doing anything else," said U.S. Rep. Brian Higgins, who spoke with Granville's mother, Jane Granville, after her son's death. ^[2]

Keep Diplomats are usually notable, and his death only enhaced that. Lee Harvey Oswald, Tim McVeigh, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are only notable for one thing. Besides, I think the event looks better under this title. Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a casual reader. I looked him up in Wikipedia -- the encyclopedia would be deficient without an entry. Perhaps refile under a larger event as the story evolves (e.g., under Ansar al-Tawhid if the murderers becomes prominent). 128.2.134.31 (talk) 09:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and put an end to this waste of time. RFerreira (talk) 06:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix_talk 22:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is he being uncivil? He just called it aa waste of time based on my above evidence. Which it is if you dare to look. Editorofthewiki (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Current Democracy Fellows". USAID. Retrieved 2008-01-02.
^ Thompson, Carolyn (January 2, 2008). "Slain Diplomat Was Devoted to Africa". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-01-02.

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Day Omega[edit]

No sources or evidence of notability. Superm401 - Talk 03:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No sources, no notability, no way. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't have any sources and doesn't seem notable to me Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable novel, no secondary sources, does not meet WP:BK. Lankiveil (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)>[reply]
Delete. The article states that the novel is popular among Christians, yet does not say how popular. Without sources, this cannot be verified. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 17:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find anything on Google to support its notability either.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aras Sar Iussan[edit]

Contested prod.

Non-notable fictional character. Carados (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Man I wish A7 would apply to fictional characters. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 04:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I very specifically am glad it doesn't. I think we speedy delete too much as it is, without enough eyes looking with due deliberation. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to City of Pearl. Fictional character with no notability in the real world. Lankiveil (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note for the record that putting an article up for deletion 18 minutes after creation (after a declined speedy and prod) is not assuming good faith and pretty much a direct violation of official policy. That's not giving the editor enough time to put the article together. And yes, many of us prefer to create articles in several small chunks, because of our connection or worries about edit conflicts or whatnot. "Give the process time, people!" he cried. Tag it for notability and let the thing grow, and THEN bring it here if nothing appears. That said, though, I'm not convinced of that this particular character satisfies the notability requirements of WP:FICT. The book is notable, but not every character. I'm holding off !voting till the end of the AfD to allow the editors time to find reviews, etc. that I'm not finding through Google, but if they don't appear, I'll be voting merge back to City of Pearl. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Non-notable character in what should be a notable book (award nominations tend to confer notability in my eyes). Book article, City of Pearl, needs a lot of work though ... it's basically a plot summary.Kww (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Doctor's diagnosis is correct, as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis of a nemesis[edit]

Prod removed by WP:SPA with a likely WP:COI, so here we are. Can't find a VTM magazine, the only "Kwest" AllMusic has is someone else, only relevant hit for "Genesis of a Nemesis" Kwest is Wikipedia. "Never Doubt Me" 520 doesn't fare much better--just MySpace. Fails both WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. Shawis (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC (and Crystal). Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 11:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete only Google hits I get for "Kwest" are for Kanye West, another (solo) rappe (named "Kwest tha Madd Lad") and for the sign on the cover of David Bowie's The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust, otherwise they're NN and don't meet WP:MUSIC, article is orphaned. Doc Strange (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kazemake[edit]

Original research based on a mispronounced title of 風まかせ (Kazemakase).--Jjok (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (Procedural, completing an incomplete nomination by Jjok several hours ago. ···日本穣)^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know a lady of this name, though there is no way to "prove" it, and any way I tried would be OR. Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you produce any references regarding the name? If we can find these, it could be a disambig page if nothing else (provided there are articles here about people with this name). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what's the deletion rationale? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea. The nomination was incomplete, and I was merely completing the procedure for Jjok. You will have to ask Jjok to supply one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard of such a ridiculous name. It doesn't sound like a Japanese personal name at all, much less a Japanese "feminine given name." The alleged meaning of the name makes no sense, either. Even if it exists, there is no point in having a Wikipedia article on such an exceptionally uncommon name of which you cannot cite even a single instance of use in a reputable source. ~~Could be a WP:HOAX~~. --Saintjust (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly the creator of the article just heard the name wrong. [50] [51]. --Saintjust (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have been posting this request for several months
    Please help me to capture the Japanese script for Kazemake, 風まかせ contains elements of this, but I don't know which part it is. This is my late Wife's little sister's name, and I want to be able to write it. I just found out, I got the job teaching in Japan! :) Chris (talk) 07:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    Do not assume that her name is something else, or that I misheard her name. Her name is Kazemake, nothing else. Even if this article gets deleted, you are making assumptions you have no business making. Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do you know if you heard it right when your self-confessed Japanese ability is "ja-0 この利用者は日本語がわかりません" and you are the only known source of information for this name? If it's just a name of an pseudonymous Wikipedia editor's wife's little sister and nothing more, it doesn't merit reference on an encyclopaedia. --Saintjust (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. So most probably, her name is Ran (蘭) in Kazemakase (while 風 (surname) まかせ (given) is not impossible). Chris, please reconfirm her name with your wife.--Jjok (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - My Wife died two years ago, so that is not possible. Chris (クリス) (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am sorry for that.--Jjok (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then why don't you ask a relative of her? --Saintjust (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't really see any reason to delete... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw the linked article Carried by the Wind: Tsukikage Ran. That kazemakase is an adjective. Tsukikage (surname) Ran (given name) is the character name. Kazemakase means depending on the wind (i.e. whimsical). Oda Mari (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jim Breen's dictionary (here) has no listing for 'kazemake' as a viable name. Page asserts no sense of notability, lists no people with that given name, etc. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oda Mari.--Jjok (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With all due respect to Mr. Breen and his work, his dictionary is hardly the definitive place to look for obscure kanji name readings. I did a quick sifting through the name readings in the Kanjigen on my electronic dictionary, though - I don't have a thorough search function, so this is not a definitive result either, but the kanji that I (or rather, the gizmo) could come up with didn't match. I looked up kanji that read make, maku and maki, and the closest one gets in name readings for all of these is "maki". Which seems a much more natural selection for a Japanese name, might I add. I also did some googling, and came up with a dictionary, which lists "kazemake" as meaning "to become dependant on something or someone" in a Kumamoto dialect. TomorrowTime (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's fairly clear that this is a) supposed to be 風まかせ and b) is not a woman's name. -Amake (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply you are incorrect; as has been repeatedly stated, it is someone's name, even though it is uncommon, perhaps unique. Chris (クリス) (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think you're wrong. You have no proof, so it doesn't matter either way. -Amake (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What's important is not whether or not it is a name, but whether it is a name of anyone notable. I don't see how this article could be expanded at all without there being someone notable by that name, and professional, reliable secondary sources about that person. Of course, even if that were to happen, it would then be an article about the individual person, and not the name. The name simply doesn't have enough notable/significant history to it, nor enough notable people bearing it, to warrant an article. I'm normally very much an inclusionist, but in this case I just don't see the point in keeping the article. LordAmeth (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Yahoo Japan/Daijisen dictionary has an entry for まけ【▽任】, so we can perhaps deduce the obscure reading of 風任 as "Kazemake." However, the question is: "Is 風任 (Kazemake) notable?".--Endroit (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee Rodriquez[edit]

Non-notable bassist with 8 gHits, no references/citations and a high ratio of weasel words. WebHamster 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC utterly. The article below this had peacocks (incidentally, Peacock is my last name), and this one has weasel words... who let all these animals run wild on Wikipedia? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for zoological reasons, per Hammer. Although he does play electric bass... Pharmboy (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peacocks, weasels, and bass, oh my. Close the zoo. Not notable, unless having the same first ten letters of David Lee Roth in your own name makes you so. And my last name isn't Weasel. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, and doesn't know how to spell Rodriguez. :) I kid! J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (music). Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Isn't notable Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 11:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Meyrowitz[edit]

Created by what appears to be a WP:SPA, peacocks running wild, zero sources that aren't written by the subject... has that awful yet distinctive odor of home-baked vanity... Ψν^Psi_nu 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, only got half way through and the sugar coating was giving me cavities. Lots of vanity and posing going on, not so much sources or notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmboy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep The article needs a lot of work (I'm the one that stuck the peacock tag on), but the subject seems notable: multiple books published, articles in Columbia Journalism Review...--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick clarification As near as I can tell, only one book published - the 1995 reference is an article in a compendium of some sort. I don't see any CJR articles or any other source that passes WP:RS in the search I did. Could be wrong, but still think this isn't worthwhile. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops When I looked at the bottom of the article, my eye conflated the "works" and "references" section. So, one book, but Oxford University Press isn't a vanity imprint. I still think there's enough here for notability; it just needs to be ruthlessly edited. "Horrible" isn't a criterion for deletion, is it?--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly enough, it turns out the CJR article is already noted in WP here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to indicate notability, though the article is still horribly infested by peacocks and seems to have no external sourcing. That isn't a reason to delete, though... Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pharmboy. This article is horrible and there isn't much notability there. Tavix (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I particularly enjoy the way he's highlighted his own name in bold every time. The guy is not notable, except maybe for being able to run a few hundred words onto a page without actually saying anything. Lankiveil (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: Whatever this is, it isn't a biography. At best it's a discussion of his works and philosophy. Corvus cornix_talk 18:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I decided to take a weed whacker to the article, more as an exercise to see if it wound up as anything more significant than "mostly harmless" than anything else. I think it's actually much less objectionable now.--NapoliRoma (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It only took me a few seconds to find these 658 sources, so clearly notable. All of the other comments above are reasons for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scholar.google.com ! Hadn't heard of that before; worth the price of the discussion right there.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I noticed (as I'm sure had many others) that the article creator, and many of the early contributors (eg Constantinidesmas214, Cameronmas214, MillerMAS214, Slocombemas214) have usernames ending in MAS214. I wondered if maybe Prof. Meyrowitz teaches a class MAS214, it seems his departments classes start with CMN, not MAS. Googling Joshua Meyrowitz & MAS214 generates hits at Macquarie University. I conclude there's a MAS214 class at Macquarie assigned to made WP edits, and this is the product of that exercise and not a vanity autobiography on the part of Prof Meyrowitz or his students. Pete.Hurd (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the Google scholar results above, his book is used in a number of classes at different universities in the US, UK, Korea, etc. Seems to be a pass for WP:PROF #3: "The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is the basis for a textbook or course". —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Joshua Meyrowitz happens to be quite referenced by one of the first Macedonian language textbooks in the field of Communications, so I think this is a clear indicator of notability. Peacock terms are not really a reason for an article deletion; the article should be edited in a more encyclopedic fashion. --FlavrSavr (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete; (request to merge was considered, but as described by nom, was already done prior to AFD). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore bus beating[edit]

As someone had mentioned earlier, Wikipedia is not WikiNews. Some of what is mentioned in this article has already been added to several other articles, including MTA Maryland Route 15 and MTA Maryland Route 27 (I since improved what was initially written in these articles). The appropriate places to write about these events is either in the articles on these bus routes, on the Maryland Transit Administration main page by creating a new section, or to create a new article generally about crime on MTA Maryland not limited to these beatings, but at a historical point of view. I would like to see a discussion about what is best. Sebwite (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, can't think how, but WP:NOT#NEWS is part of an official policy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki into WikiNews. Wikipedia is NOT news and this thing only happened a month ago. If this is continually in the news for an extended period of time, which I don't see happening, then there could be some ground to keep on. Unless this happens, I don't see this staying as an article. Tavix (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are loopholes to most of the policies on what Wikipedia is not that allow certain categories, like news, to be included. Short term news stories like this one that receive coverage for a month, then die down, can be included in a small paragraph in another related article. Already, someone inserted a paragraph into MTA Maryland Route 27 about this. I've been following the coverage of this story myself since it first happened, and it has been kept alive in part by other similar events, which may or may not continue in the future. Some of these other events are also mentioned in the articles on the respective bus lines. For now, this seems like the appropriate place to merge this article. Should more incidents like this take place in the future, it may be worth creating an article that documents the overall situation, but a whole article on a local interest story by itself does not seem to fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.Sebwite (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. I have just merged the contents of this article into the article MTA Maryland Route 27, improved the writing style, and slightly updated it.Sebwite (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WikiNews uses at this time a license incompatible with the GFDL, so a Transwiki is not really possible. --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm sure that Wikinews doesn't want this rather POV piece anyway. Wikipedia is not a news service. Lankiveil (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Someone had a good idea, but this is not sufficiently newsworthy to merit an article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep who says this is news? This is an article about a hate crime, just like our articles on James Byrd, Jr., Amy Biehl or the Zebra murders. It is still developing but that doesn’t mean it can simply be swept away as a news article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are multiple differences between this article and the others you have listed:
  1. It is still being investigated whether or not this actually was a hate crime. A hate crime is not defined as any crime where the demographic categories of the victims and the perpetrators differ - hate crimes are crimes that are specifically motivated by bias against a specific group. Whether that bias actually exists has not been determined in this instance.
  2. Events like the dragging death of James Byrd received media attention around the country and occasionally the world. This event has yet to receive significant coverage outside of the Baltimore area.
  3. That press coverage is usually sustained for months and sometimes years, in the national and international press. This event has not sustained lengthy press coverage. Newspapers outside of the Baltimore area generally gave this one brief, and then ceased coverage. Natalie (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given my remarks above. This appears to be a crime of purely local significance and has not sustained the national coverage necessary to demonstrate notability. Natalie (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a non-notable event outside of the Baltimore area. I live 50 miles away from Baltimore in the Philadelphia newsmarket and have heard nothing on the local news about this or similiar events in the Baltimore area. Document the occurences in the appropriate MTA articles and delete this article. Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event in Baltimore and being only of local interest is not cause for removal, or is hardly an enforced criteria. I am sure we can all point to local interests that no one outside our areas have likely ever read. Mdlawmba (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, just because other articles exist about things of local significance does not mean that this article gets a pass. You may find #5 under Wikipedia:NOT#IINFO of interest. Natalie (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I did not see anything under #5 which states that local interests are banned. I doubt that such a rule exists at all, but left my prior answer open in case it did. Regardless, if it does exist, then half of the articles on Wikipedia should arguably be removed. Doing a quick yahoo search, the result is 97,000 reference to "sarah kreager attack". This is not a small, dying news topic. The content and editing may not be in everyone's taste, but it should be improved, not eliminated. Mdlawmba (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I never said that local interest topics were banned, per se, but it is general practice that events and people who have generally only received news coverage from local outlets do not meet the notability criteria. Search engine results are not in any way evidence of notability, for a variety of reasons. There has been no continuing national or international coverage from actual news outlets: one briefing in the New York Times, no coverage in the Wall Street Journal, one article from the Associated Press reprinted in the Washington Post, no coverage in the Los Angeles Times, no coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times, no coverage on the BBC. The only sources you've added to the article are from a local radio station. Natalie (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment, Okay, then stated another way, neither national nor international news coverage appears to be a criteria. I did not provide all of the citation to the article, as this is not MY article, but citation in many articles tend to be local television media website articles because they tend to beat the newspapers to the punch. Anything I cited can be found in Baltimore and D.C. newspapers and numerous national articles. Mdlawmba (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't trying to imply that you are the only person who's added references, but I did notice that you added some references, all of which were from a local radio station. What "numerous national articles" exist? All I have been able to find are single articles that are largely reprinted from the single Associated Press article about the incident, all of which are dated December 7th. Referring again to What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." This is something that was in the national news for a brief period of time (approximately a day) and has not sustained any coverage since then, nearly a month later. Obviously it has sustained local coverage, but there are numerous crimes that get significant local coverage. That is not an indication of notability. Natalie (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom:When I proposed this article for deletion, I was never opposed to deleting the information. I do not believe, though, that it should have its own article. If a major fight broke out at a high school, and it shook up the region and was covered by the local media for a month thereafter, the appropriate place to mention it would be in the article about that school, not an article of its own. There have been murders at some malls that are mentioned in the articles about those malls. Besides, the title "Baltimore bus beating" is very non-specific and implies this was the only beating ever on a bus in Baltimore. But there have been other assaults on buses in the Baltimore area in the past and after this one.Sebwite (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into MTA Maryland Route 15 under #Incidents on Route 15 buses. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sins of the Fathers (novel)[edit]

Contested prod, non-notable album. The closest thing I could find a reliable source for this novel is a review of a novel with a similar name written by a John Richmond.

Admittedly self-published. Carados (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete ..."is a representation of the new wave of self-publishing by authors embracing technology... in an effort to gain the attention of the larger corporate publishers." Cute. Nice try, but not notable and shouldn't be encouraged further. Page reads like Cliffs Notes anyhoo. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I would've speedied it with db-spam. This long-winded self-promotion was created in its current form on the first edit TheBilly (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did orginally, but I have been yelled at for being too trigger happy with speedy delete tags, so I removed it. -Carados (talk) 07:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, is this attempting to twist "had to self publish" into a claim of edgy originality and foresight? Self-published books are not inherently non-notable, but they need pretty good secondary sourcing to establish that notability, and this book doesn't have it. Lankiveil (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, subject isn't inherently notable and there are no useable secondary sources to establish notability - Dumelow (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Self-publishing is going to become more and more prevalent, especially with the shift towards e-books which renders traditional publishers obsolete. Wikipedia inclusion policy will need to be updated on this before long. No vote on this particular release as I lack sufficient knowledge of the subject to process an informed opinion as to whether it is notable enough for inclusion. 23skidoo (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data)[edit]

This survived a VFD, but it still has almost nothing in the way of references, so I believe it should be deleted. Superm401 - Talk 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sourcing issues aside, I'm a little baffled as to why Empire of Japan (economic and financial data) needs a supplimental page like this—it's not exactly overlong, even combined with this one. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and any key information from this page should be moved there before deletion. However, that page is barely sourced either, so it may need to be deleted eventually too. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deletion discussions are not to be used as cleanup processes. You are introducing here a contemplated deletion of a topic which clearly has a valid place in Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, obviously.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be disappointed if all the information were merged, because most of it is unsourced. Superm401 - Talk 05:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Talk:Empire of Japan/Additional economic and financial data and leave a comment at Talk:Empire of Japan that it needs verification. This preserves the edit history; we can then delete the resulting useless cross-namespace redirect left behind at Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data). Similar treatment should be applied to Empire of Japan (economic and financial data). Either 1) someone took the trouble of entering this stuff into Wikipedia, possibly translating it from Japanese in the process, or 2) they made it up out of whole cloth. Given the potential that it's fake, it shouldn't be in mainspace, but since it might be real, it should be preserved somewhere while editors try to verify it. cab (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of references, per se, is not a proper reason for deletion; deletion debates must primarily address the topic. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely detailed and specific numbers without any references at all should not be permitted to persist in mainspace for years and years, as this has. Verifiability is an extremely basic policy around here and standards have risen greatly since this article was first created. Wikipedia should not be presenting utterly unverified information as fact for such a long period of time; unsourced content should be aggressively removed as per the famous Jimbo quote at WP:PROVEIT. We can create an article again about the Economy of the Empire of Japan when sufficient sources are available. cab (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely within policy to remove unverified information. That is not the question here. (By the way, not everyone equates "aggressive" with good.) Making a deletion debate here is muddling the issue. A merge of the article can be proposed through the channel for merging. Removal of content is not a deletion debate. The proposal here is attempting removal of the page, without the option, for non-admins, to work on the statistics. I note that the proposer has not engaged in Talk page discussion of specifics. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganise - The information here, if it is reliable, needs to be integrated with Empire of Japan and/or Economic history of Japan. As it is currently presented it is more just a list than encyclopaedic. - 52 Pickup (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is an issue, and has been a long time -- as in, removing the unverified material would leave an empty article. Part of the problem is it's buried -- a subarticle of a subarticle, where hardly anyone's would have noticed there's a problem. Definitely some sort of reorganization is needed in order to evaluate which of the material is essential and which can be pruned, and then focus on sourcing and organizing the former. What I would like to do is merge this into Empire of Japan (economic and financial data), and then merge the result into, um, possibly Empire of Japan is the best target here, but someone more familiar with the subject may know better -- then remand the hodgepodge to the Wikiproject Japan people to sort out. After a good faith time to work on it -- I suggest at least six months, given many sources will be in Japanese -- revisit the problem. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reorganise per Quasirandom's excellent plan. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsure about the rationale behind a merge. The content is merged - and then what? Citation needed tags are applied, and within a week the content removed. All that remain is an implausible redirect. Don't see the advantage. Addhoc (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless sources are found, in which case merge. Addhoc (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The sources must exist, but probably not in English. Going to take time. Go with Quasirandom's plan. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Dream[edit]

Article does not meet notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC –Dream out loud (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would this be a fight song? Either way, it's not notable. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as simply not notable. Pharmboy (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside of the club, perhaps deserves a passing mention of the club's page - Dumelow (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable article. Macy's 123 review me 18:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable unless anyone can prove otherwise. No sources whatsoever.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Close non-notable listcruft. Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances[edit]

This page has no encyclopedic content. Its a mere list of non-Notable appearances. Just another Ron Paul fan-page S TX 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Despite my love for lists I would have to say that it violates WP:NOT#DIR and there is nothing in WP:LIST or WP:SAL that makes me think it is anything more than a directory and political fan-cruft. Earthdirt (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above comment.. we don't need to know about every single appearence that ron paul has ever made... everything could be summed up with ron paul had been on various talk shows to give his point of views on various topics such as.... blah blah blah.. one paragraph on the ron paul campaign article would be sufficient. This article is not needed. -Tracer9999 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above as well as a general reading of WP:IINFO: merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Entirely WP:FANCRUFT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the current merge discussion, this AfD is out of place. I say Merge, at the least. Buspar (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that any AfD discussion can be short-circuited by one person's decision to move content around the encyclopedia? --- tqbf 06:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd submit that the closing admin should take some note of the discussion regarding the proposed merge, but that this debate (rightly) trumps it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, also want to point out that AfD's collect more diverse feedback than a talk page merge discussion --- this debate is a far better indicator than any "consensus" formed in the RP talk pages. --- tqbf 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Buspar, this article is up for DELETION due to it being a LIST.. why do you keep merging it into the main ron paul campain article.. as yet another LIST. let an admin decide what should happen. -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The merge discussion predates this AfD. Since the merge discussion resulted in a consensus of merge, it was merged and cleaned up. This AfD only relates to the final fate of the separate article, not whether it should be in the main one. I suggest reading more on Wiki's procedures before you're banned for violating WP:3RR and edit warring. Buspar (talk) 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible that I missed it in today's talk page rush, but where is this consensus to merge? (I see that it was discussed, but I'm not sure I would call that a consensus.) --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, better than deletion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on your position? Thanks. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I don't see any need to. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - How will this be considered encyclopedic 50 years from now .... given that notability never expires? Merge is not an option because this information is inherently not encyclopedic. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure listcruft. --- tqbf 06:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. But look on the bright side - now that it's 2008, we can look forward to ALL KINDS OF NEW CRAP like this popping up! Isn't it just too fun to think about? Ψν^Psi_nu 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list too far, even for me. Nick mallory (talk) 09:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, I'm looking forward to Paul crashing out of the race just to stop the flood of Roncruft articles. Lankiveil (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Ridiculous on the face of it. Ron Paul is actually running a legit campaign with some legit accomplishments, but his fanboy WP editors continue to try to build him up with silly articles like these, as though he's a 1% no-hoper. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like Ron Paul, but seriously? A list of his appearances?Reinoe (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do NOT merge. Like someone above said, pure listcruft. --Calton | Talk 15:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(see list of episodes)[edit]

What is this piece of info?? Nobody understands this title. Georgia guy (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Cleanup: I'm assuming this is an episode list for Sesame Street. Granted it's horribly written and improperly named but that could be fixed. I can't find another Sesame Street episode list. -- Redfarmer (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incomplete, unreferenced, and poorly written. If someone writes a proper Sesame Street episode list at a sane title like List of Sesame Street episodes (currently a redirect to Sesame Street), that can be considered separately, but I wouldn't necessarily support such a list either. Superm401 - Talk 02:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here's what I started typing: (Weak Keep with Rename Gut reaction was delete, but then I thought it might have a certain usefulness) then I stopped, because that usefulness would require an episode summary for each, and some sort of searchability, and... far too difficult. I guess my gut had the right idea. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its sesame Street all right, but the title and majority of the "article" seems to say otherwise. Tavix (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This must be a mistake of some kind? LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if this was well written, I don't really see a need for a list of Sesame Street episodes, they basically just reuse the same things over and over again with some minor storyline edited in. Ridernyc (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, this is pretty bizarre. Alloranleon (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dear God, is that a list of Sesame Street episodes? Now I've seen everything. Lankiveil (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per all, especially Ridernyc Doc Strange (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, though I believe that a properly written and referenced article could exist listing the episodes of what is obviously a notable show. I'm concerned about Biting a contributor whose first and only contributions have been the creation of this article. Even in its current, highly incomplete, state, it surely took some time to put together 66k of formatting and what little information is in place. I wouldn't blink twice if I saw this in a sandbox, but it's in the article space, and should be deleted. Unless there are objections, I'm going to message the original editor and see if I can be of assistance to them. I'll also welcome them, since the user's first talk page message was the notice about this AFD. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced. Macy's 123 review me 18:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of Sesame Street episodes. The article also needs to be cleaned up and have a lot of information added. Parts of it are already good, we should just give it time. I honestly think you are all too lazy to do that. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. I was too lazy to even think about it. Ψν^Psi_nu 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yeah. There are hundreds of episodes, and writing up a summary, even brief, for all of them just isn't worth it, or practical. Simplified: nobody can be arsed to do it, least of all Pwnage8. :) Alloranleon (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Folks lets keep this above the belt, please ... calling editors "lazy" is not very constructive in this debate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE above I, for one, was joking. As for Pwnage8, I think he was just sharing some good-natured sarcasm with us all. <:) Still, covering each others backs aside, the article just isn't worth it... Alloranleon (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Pwnage, but WP:DAFT the current title - it's a doozy! Grutness...wha? 00:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 no context (although I'm not so sure about that, because it's not a short article.). Delete anyway - it has no context whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of info.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to whomever created it. Obviously it looks like a work in progress that through error was released into the wild. Sesame Street is a notable enough series to warrant an episode list article (albeit it'll be gigantic and will probably have to be split up into decades), but right now this looks like a personal project. Maybe check the Muppet wiki to see if there's a more complete version that can be imported? 23skidoo (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopeless. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to List of Sesame Street episodes or Userfy until it looks good enough to move. --Pixelface (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks context or any real useful or notable content. The edtor who created most likely clicked the list of episodes link in the main article, which was inappropriately set to (see list of episodes). Being a new editor, he didn't realize the article name was all messed up (guessing). The editor also hasn't touched it since starting it or done any other editing other than the two he made here, so it is doubtful userfing would help. There was a List of Sesame Street episodes which redirects to the main article and appears to be the remnants of an attempt to do an episode list by season that failed. Not sure what value a list of Sesame Street episodes would have. While many TV shows articles benefit from episode lists, for some show formats it just doesn't make much sense and I think Sesame Street would be one of those.AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For some show formats it just doesn't make sense? So there are just too many episodes of this non-notable show? 38 seasons is too many for a list? Doctor Who started in 1963 and 738 episodes have aired as of December 25, 2007 — see List of Doctor Who serials. Sesame Street started in 1969 and over 4,000 episodes have aired. Why have List of Doctor Who serials and not List of Sesame Street episodes? List of Trinity Blood episodes lists a mere 24 episodes. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a List of Sesame Street episodes article. This article just needs to be moved. --Pixelface (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be obtuse. I would think you would understand that by show format, period, I meant the type of show that it is. Doctor Who and Trinity Blood are fictional series whose episodes have a story line to summarize. Sesame Street does not. News programs generally don't need an episode list, nor would such lists make any kind of sense. Only a few game shows have a format that warrant one either. If you want to go through and find the information and do the episode summaries for all 4000 episodes, have the article userfied to your page and built it there. This article adds nothing at all and most of the episode titles listed are wrong. From what I saw, someone tried and gave up realizing the insanity of it. It would take a task force or project to do such a thing. If it were going to be attempted, this article would not make a good starting point at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - While you're probably right, I'll note that there is some notability for individual episodes of the show. Particularly, several episodes have had high profile guest stars who recieved some press coverage for their appearance. It might be worthwhile to note those appearances. But note my comments above, this article isn't (yet) fit for the mainspace, and needs to be deleted or userfied. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to be honest, after a quick scout around I haven't found anywhere reliable where you could actually find a plot synopsis for each episode, and while the episode titles may be available, I doubt they would provide any useful meaning to this page. The suggestion of perhaps listing only notable articles (for example, such as those with celebs in) is a good one, but I don't think an article like this in it's current format serves any useful place on wikipedia. Kavanagh21 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to pontificate. It's an unnecessary list which cannot be made complete and does not need to be hosted on Wikipedia. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the evolution of the plot/characters on Sesame Street is really needed, at worst a season-by-season approach would be good, better would be "eras" (not as simple as pre-Elmo and post-Elmo, but one gets the idea). Due to the nature of the show, there should never be a comprehensive list of SS episodes on WP. That's a off-site wiki material but way too much trivial details. --MASEM 17:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved page to List of Sesame Street (TV series) episodes. Nevertheless Delete unles it is planned better.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Alpha Kappa[edit]

Does not appear to be especially notable, so I am nominating it for deletion. Lawrence Cohen 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it has a history, there are no other hits on google aside from wikipedia and their personal site. --neonwhite user page talk 01:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From what I am seeing, this is not a national organization, and given that it is local only, I think it more to assert any notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable frat, no secondary coverage does not bode well for notability. Lankiveil (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The name here sounds very familiar for some reason, but I couldn't honestly tell you why. If you can't find sources for it, then delete, but it seems strange.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of Pi Kappa Alpha? far more notable? --neonwhite user page talk 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll be it.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omero Mumba[edit]

Prod removed by IP with comment "Irish people are awesome". Article seems to lack any evidence of significant notability for the subject, having only really appeared in one known film and even then as a secondary character to his sister. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his sole claim to notability appears to be playing a bit part in a film, which is no claim to notability at all. Lankiveil (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, only claim to fame is as an extra in a single film, no other notability (notability is not claimable by association to his sister) - Dumelow (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Victuallers (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace's Law[edit]

Non-notable, made up in school one day. Previously prodded by someone else but was removed by an IP, so just to be safe, put up for a real AFD. Kuronue | Talk 01:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up during a creationist discussion one day. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 02:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in any way, shape or form notable, nor even memorable, as an adage should be. Sorry, Ace. Ψν^Psi_nu 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:LONELYBEACONSLAW - anytime anyone comes up with something they think is clever, they invariably write a Wikipedia article about it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Ace"s, another article that fails WP:NEO! (I'm sorry) Lankiveil (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. We should have a CSD for articles that assert non-notability and prove that they fail WP:NFT in the article content.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a clear example of something not suitable for Wikipedia. JavaTenor (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hahaha what 74.139.233.170 (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of American and British words[edit]

(View AfD)

List of British words not widely used in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (3 previous AfDs)
List of American words not widely used in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 previous AfD)
List of words having different meanings in British and American English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (1 previous AfD)

I will quote this comment from an earlier AfD:

“

From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not...[l]ists of such definitions...usage guide[s] or slang and idiom guide[s]". This is a list of dictionary defintions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Definitions of words go in Wiktionary, encyclopaedia articles go in Wikipedia. [These are] also... unmaintainable list[s] with OR problems.

”

These articles are indeed unmaintainable (typical size: 160+ KB) and a magnet for original research. This is in direct contrast to the articles American and British English spelling differences and American and British English pronunciation differences, which are perfectly encyclop[a]edic in nature. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Having lived in both Britain and the USA I find it generally accurate and interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without meaning to appear as hovering over this AfD (I just noticed your edit on my watchlist), "interesting" isn't a valid AfD keep reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed if it is of interest to only one person, but not if it is of interest to many persons, as is clear from the text below. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

No, that's still not the case. The people below make other points beside "it's interesting". — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced that the article fails the points mentioned. It should either be kept or failing that, moved to wikitionary via the transwiki process. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not in contravention of WP:NOT. DICT1 says: "Although articles should begin with a definition and description of a subject, they should provide other types of information about that subject as well." This article does. DICT2 says: "Descriptive articles about languages, dialects or types of slang are desirable. Prescriptive guides for prospective speakers of such languages are not." This is (but could be better) descriptive and certainly not prescriptive. Merge, if you like. Split, if you like. Clean-up, please, but it does not meet deletion criteria. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm no cunning linguist (had to be said), and could give a host of non-arguments for keeping it (i like it, it is useful, etc), but in short, I find it quite encyclopedic. That is what I would want in an encyclopedia, particularly the English Wikipedia. DoubleBlue is right on this one, as this isn't about a simple list of words being defined, but rather the differences in Englishes. ;) Oh, and it does need more sources, granted, but that is never a reason to delete. Pharmboy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provides useful information about differences in varieties of English, definitely encyclopedic. ♠P M C♠ 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per PMC. I think this content is perfectly encyclopedic. matt91486 (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pharmboy and Doubleblue. The articles could be merged. They could also be improved via normal editing, including addition of references to substantiate the differences between the versions of English. There are numerous print sources which discuss the variation in the language, so there is a basis for improving the referencing. The editorial process can delete any O.R. Variation in language use in different English speaking countries has been the subject of sybstantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and thus satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all. The nominator does have a point, and although WP:INTERESTING is not a good argument, and these articles tend to attract original research, they seem like valid encyclopedic lists. I can't give you a better reason than that though sadly.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are not lists of definitions; the first 2 are a list of words (with definitions included), and the 3rd one is a list of differences. WP:LISTS states lists serve 1 of 3 purposes: information, navigation or development. These lists clearly meet the "information" criteria. Therefore, I disagree with the nominator's rationale. Edison properly addresses any WP:OR concerns. However, the length is becoming cumbersome; suggest breaking up either by categories (transportation, food, etc.) or A-E, F-J, etc.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is starting to snow.--12 Noon ^2¢ 02:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pharmboy and Doubleblue. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, they attract original research (which generally gets deleted), but they do not inherently consist of original research. Snalwibma (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seconding Snalwibma's comment. Joriki (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To second the thoughts of many above me, as well as being British in America this is highly useful for my more uncommon terminology that garners curious looks from colleagues. Incidentally, if Wikitionary is technically the correct place for this, I couldn't find it there nor did it seem immediately appropriate. Bclaydon (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jimgawn (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why? Please see wp:NOREASON to understand why I am asking. wp:DEMOCRACY is another good read. Pharmboy (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because. Because it's documentation of variation of usage and meaning within a major world language and the collection of societies that use that language.Jimgawn (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I agree, I just know a blank 'keep' will be ignored. Pharmboy (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great list. Perhaps it is time to modify the WP:NOT guidelines. If OR is really a problem, tag the worst offenders with {{cn}}.--Knulclunk (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So it's not perfect. I liked it and learned a lot.67.161.166.20 (talk) 19:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I refer to this list regularly, and removing it would be detrimental to Wikipedia. RFerreira (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per existing comments, not to mention how much I've contributed especially to List of words having different meanings in British and American English. Besides, contrary to the nominator's comment, these articles are distinct in purpose from dictionary entries. -- Smjg (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep but I will say it is a bit big and horrible, maybe it should be split into smaller articles? (i.e. words with differences a-g, h-p, etc...) --Him and a dog 21:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Ice (Warriors)[edit]

This article does not meet WP:FICT. I do realize that this has been up for deletion once before, but I would like to point out that many votes in that case were from the WikiProject for this series. The reasoning in that AfD for keep was that it was cause for clean-up, not deletion. Since then, no one has "cleaned up" the article to meet WP:FICT for one simple reason: the book does not have any independent notability. Corvus coronoides _talk 01:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: also nominating the following articles together for the same reasons as above.

Delete: Little to no work has been done since the last AFD, and it doesn't meet general notability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree to everything said, but as long as the page is transwikied to Warriors Wiki, then it can be deleted. §ροττεδςταr^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and per Seicer. This is all plot and not enough information about the notability of the book. Metros (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think if they are transwikied and the Warriors Wiki is linked from on the main Warriors page it will provide anyone who wants to see plot summaries with a way to access them. :) Corvus coronoides _talk 03:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grumble: These are not fictional books. They have real, objective existance that can be verified. WP:FICT does not apply. The relevant notability guideline is WP:BK. (Also, could someone please supply a link to the previous AfD? I would like to see the arguments there before offering an opinion here.) —Quasirandom (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Horribly confused It's listed as a fantasy book and, as near as I can tell, is written from the point of view of (or in terms of the adventures of, at any rate) mythical cats. This has real, objective existance behind it? Second the request for a link to previous AfD; gut reaction is delete because Wikipedia is not for plot summaries, but there is a history here. Ψν^Psi_nu 04:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Quasirandom is saying (I believe) is that WP:FICT is a guideline for notability of elements within fiction whereas WP:BK is the guidelines for works of fiction. Metros (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is correct. If being whacked over the head by the subject of the article would hurt, then WP:FICT does not apply. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had an edit conflict but was going to say something similar. The books are real, you can buy them, the fact that they're books about a fictional subject doesn't move them to WP:FICT like a character that only exists in a work of fiction.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted i haven't seen a link to the previous afd arguements, but on the surface, looks like a notable work. not a way to reference, but comes right up on amazon. Looks more like an article(s) that still needs cleanup, but not deletion.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Previous AFD although it looks as if canvassing was done prior due to the overwhelmingly strong favor of keeping the article from those involved in the related WikiProject, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather strong accusation. Isn't it just as likely that editors who belonged to the projects agreed with each other?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was this thread on the talk page of the main article that begged editors to vote keep. Not fully canvassing, but very similar in nature. Metros (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as far as I can tell, each volume on its own does not meet WP:BK. However, as a series perhaps they'd be best off merged to List of Warriors books or a similar article? Lankiveil (talk) 11:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: They require cleanup not deletion, and Warriors is notable enough ^DAVID _CAT 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But they've needed clean-up since the last AFD on these which was in May, so over 7 months ago. When will these articles be cleaned up? Metros (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous discussion, merge/redirect per Lankiveil also possible . Catchpole (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment "Warriors is notable enough." According to WP:BK, its not.

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Nope
The book has won a major literary award. Nope
The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country. Nope
The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. Nope
The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources. No again.

Also pointing out that for the previous AfD - I'm not accusing anyone of canvassing, but the simple fact that the majority of the voters were from the WikiProject is at least somewhat biased. If more votes had come from those outside the Warriors WikiProject, I would have been more hesitant to nominate these for deletion again. The articles themselves could be merged to Warriors (novel series), but as Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries I think deletion is more appropriate. Corvus coronoides _talk 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to previous discussion Corvus coronoides _talk 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a best-selling series of books from a major publisher fall foul of a wikipedia notability guideline, I would suggest it is the guideline that needs to be changed. Catchpole (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best-selling series already as a page devoted to the series. See Warriors (novel series). The pages for the individual books are nothing but plot summary, which again, what Wikipedia is not. If the articles required clean-up, then why haven't they been cleaned up? Because the books are not notable enough. Also see here for a previous AfD on one of the books from the series that ended up deleted. Corvus coronoides _talk 15:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're not notable, then who set up the Wikia project? Catchpole (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published by an imprint of Harper Collins. The target demographic of these novels is probably badly represented on Wikipedia; I can't imagine we'd target the novels of R.A. Salvatore. One of the books, The Darkest Hour (Warriors), has some review information; similar stuff likely exists for the others.--Nydas^(Talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If similar reviews exist, why haven't they been added in the seven months since the last AfD? Corvus coronoides _talk 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because we're hopeless when it comes to venturing off Google.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So basically, the AfD will fail, the article will not be improved upon, and we'll be stuck with something that is again non-noteworthy? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We'll be 'stuck' with articles, which, like all articles, are under construction. Just what is the problem? --Nydas^(Talk) 19:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lankiveil. If they can't demonstrate notability individually, or if just noone is willing to spend some time to do so, a merge into a book series article sounds like a good middle ground in the meantime. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
either Merge or Transwiki. And if we Transwiki, can it get done through Wikia Annex like it's suposed to this time? I have a ton of stuff crammed on my Userpage waiting for me to get time to transfer it becuase of the last "Transwiki" (I should just be greatful it got saved at all, really). Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am willing to try and find reviews for each of these books and put them on the articles. As of now, only Into the Wild (Warriors) and The Darkest Hour (Warriors) have reviews, but I'll try to add more to other articles as fast as I can. Shrewpelt (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If you are willing to find reviews for these books, why was this not done after the last AfD? How are we to know that it won't happen again, and we will again have non-notable articles seven months from now? Corvus coronoides _talk 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer Actually, I hadn't heard of Wikipedia at the time these articles were last nominated for AFD. This time, there will be notable articles! I just did Fire and Ice (Warriors). Shrewpelt (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for actually addressing the concerns, Shrewpelt. I really would hate to delete the articles just because no one was willing to find info on them. Corvus coronoides _talk 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think deleting thems a bit extreme Gnomerat (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT, and seems only to survive on wiki due to a fanbase voting to keep it. Mayalld (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. jj137 ^♠ 02:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Symon Chow[edit]

A photographer and graphic designer, we're told. Chow's own prettily designed website makes modest claims, but his creativity is a matter of public record: Disguising his iPod as a pack of cigarettes got him five sentences in a published book. (Or rather, his own declaration that he had done this did.) Whelming stuff! As for his work in photography and graphic design, half a year has gone by without provision of the sources asked for. Regretfully, I don't think that having simply printed out a Camel-themed iPod skin and stuck it on his player constitutes notability, and nothing putatively notable here is verifiable. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator is right, and the article hasn't gotten any references despite being tagged in June. Let's go BLUE--Malinaccier (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wholly un-notable person. Anyone can claim to be in photography and graphic design. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' disguising your iPod by sticking paper on it does not notability make. Lankiveil (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A Google search didn't result in my finding anything notable about Symon Chow either Brian (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Writers Competition[edit]

Deletion nomination Non-notable writing award. No evidence of any notice to this award is given besides the organization that gives it. Without any sources independant of itself that can attest to its notability, then it does not pass the relevent guideline, WP:N Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems to be a real award, but I can't find any evidence that it's particularly notable as far as writing competitions go. Lankiveil (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hut 8.5 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, Certainly real, and just notable enough to pass WP:N - see [[52]] and [[53]] and [[54]]. Springnuts (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Needs a complete rewrite and some references to go with it, but it looks to be manageable. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – However the name should be changed to “Atlantic Writing Competition”. Under this heading, there does seem to be some claim of notability as shown here. [55] Shoessss | Chat 19:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Because I see in the google search you site, links to the website of the competition itself (self published, can't establish notability), Wikipedia pages (can't be used to establish notability) and resumes of people who have won the award (again, resumes are self-published and unreliable for establishing notability). Could you point to a website, newspaper, or other reliable source which discusses the award in a substantial and non-trivial way? Because no one has done so yet. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – {{{1|JERRY ^talk _contribs, I appreciate the job you are trying to do! However, your job is to make a decision! Either, Keep or Delete , stop the re-listing Shoessss | Chat 02:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Xe could have closed it as no consensus, but I imagine he felt it needed deletion. There's no harm in relisting. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources found in a search of Google News Archive. In Google Books there are listings of awards won by authors in book CVs that include it, but those mentions are the definition of trivial. The best that can be said of it is that some of its winners have gone on to bigger and better things. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Too Human[edit]

No real claim to notability. Maximum chart position is stated as 22, which isn't really that notable ! No references given, and the article on the band itself gives more information about this song than this article itself. CultureDrone (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I can't even find anything to verify that they made #22, and what chart it was actually made on (ie: Mainstream Top 40, or some hyper-obscure niche chart). The single does not appear to be notable on its own, and it is discussed much more on the article The Rakes, making a merge illogical. Lankiveil (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC).Keep upon further thought - evidence provided that the charting claim is not bogus, so just falls over the line. Still needs radical improvement though. Lankiveil (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Under WP:MUSIC a band that has charted a single on a national chart is presumed to be notable. I'll see if I can find information to confirm the articles assertion. Xymmax (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading too fast, I see now we're talking about the single, (which did hit number 22 per the band's article.)) I agree the single is not sufficiently notable for its own page, I would simply Redirect this page to Rakes. Xymmax (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All of the other band's singles have pages for them that aren't up for deletion. This page just needs to be cleaned up a bit. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One question then - are ALL a bands singles automatically notable and entitled to their own article ? Perhaps some of the other singles mentioned shouldn't have their own articles either... CultureDrone (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then there's a question in itself. If the other singles at that page were also nominated for deletion, I would probably have voted to merge/redirect them all to the band's page. It just seems weird to single out this one song. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument to keep. --neonwhite user page talk 02:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN single. Placing 22 on a chart (it doesn't even say which chart) isn't very high. As well it has no references backing up this claim. And HelloAnnyong, Other crap exists isn't a valid keep argument. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a website that has a large database of all the Top 40 singles to ever chart on the UK Top 75 says that the single did indeed chart in the UK, hitting #21 (not #22) in March 2006 and was the band's third top 40 single in the country and it was the band's highest charting single. The page does need to be wikified, but single is definitely notable Doc Strange (talk) 17:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the fact that this was their highest charting single is already covered in the article about the band itself CultureDrone (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because it's their highest charting single doesn't make it notable. It makes it notable to the band, but doesn't make it notable to the encyclopedia. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – to the The Rakes. Shoessss | Chat 19:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the band's page. There is no point in making articles that can easily be configured into the main article. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ummm... If charting 22 is not good enough to be noted, what is? I feel that charting in the top 40 (seeing that the UK Charts keep a year long database of each week's Top 40). If you delete this article, you have to delete every non-top 10 single ever. Believe me, there are a lot of those on wikipedia. (talk) I do not post from a certain point in time, but from all points in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.122.123 (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks substantial content. Addhoc (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect - it actually reached 21 according to everyhit.co.uk but that alone doesnt really make it notable. --neonwhite user page talk 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Re-list why….I consensus was reached! I wouldn’t say which way. Nevertheless, this should have been closed! Shoessss | Chat 02:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I guess it could be notable by WP:Music Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. #22 in the UK makes a single notable. Easily. We have thousands of pages on singles like this, and they are notable if they've reached a national chart. I don't see why people are saying that this should be deleted or redirected.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesnt make it notable. As the guideline says A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. There really is no point to keeping this article, it provides no more information than is contained on the band's article. --neonwhite user page talk 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Ericsson S500[edit]

Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is no a cell phone directory. Insufficient substantial references exist to sustain a Wikipedia article.

{{prod}} was removed with a lecture about using {{prod}}, but with no substantive improvement to the article. I use {{prod}} because I think that there's no controversy here and the article should be deleted because the subject mechanically doesn't meet the notability requirements, and hits several issues with WP:NOT. These products aren't notable--they're just another in a line of evolving technologies. Many have sold, but popularity doesn't convey notability. There are references to find, but very few or none of them are substantial. It's easy to find capsule or comparative reviews which are 1500 words or less; those don't substantiate an article on the phone. The phones are churning for both planned obsolesence and chasing the rapid evolution of standards.

Compare what's been written about the design and evolution of the Corvette or the Apple Macintosh, for example -- truly notable products because of their innovative design, influence in the market, and longevity. Mikeblas (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability is asserted for the product, and Wikipedia is not a mobile phone directory, but these sorts of things tend to be controversial, so it's a good idea not to prod them. Lankiveil (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This phone is being released as a special fashion model. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. The article makes no mention of "special fashion model", and neither do the WP:CORP or the WP:N criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So what's the question? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The question is: how does this phone meet the notability requirements? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The many glowing reviews which highlight its innovative fashion features. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of other untouched mobile phone articles on Wikipedia and with some improvement, this one could be useful too. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There also of plenty of other mobile phone articles which have been deleted. Did you meant to !vote "delete"? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other stuff exists. Whether there are other articles on cell phones or not should have nothing to do with the argument regarding this article's suitability. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until something happens to lend notability to this phone. Simply being a phone released by a notable company doesn't mean anything particularly notable, and Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a bunch of indiscriminate information. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very few phones are special enough to have their own article, and the amount of AfDs that come about imo is slightly ridiculous--is this REALLY that big an issue?Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—sufficient references exist to support a brief article; see, for example, reviews at CNet [56] and CNet Asia [57]. I don't agree with the nominator's contention that reviews are unacceptable sources. I believe his other remarks arise from a confusion between notability and importance. The Corvette is more important than the Sony Ericsson S500, but both are notable. Spacepotato (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been informed of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ordinary product reviews in CNET do not qualify for notability. Quick Google check shows no notable sources. Not notable unless something happens to make it so. — Becksguy (talk) 09:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably better to have articles for the series of phones, instead of individual models. Addhoc (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree completely, a series of phones is more reasonable, although some exceptions (i.e., iPhone)) will exist, and (haven't searched yet but I'm going to) there's more likely to be information regarding a series of phones more so than one specific phone from said series. But that's wholly a different discussion, I think. Aeternitas827 (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, this article does formally meet the notability criteria - sourced to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Among the 450,000 odd google hits are several others. Start with some news stories, here. Some seem to be blogs, reviews, and PR reprints, but not all. Second, can we please cut it out already with the hit-and-miss nominations of cell phone articles? Instead of considering these on a case by case nomination for deletion, where we get inconsistent results that chip away at the encyclopedic coverage of the subject until it's a mess, we should decide this all at the policy level.Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's an article on a cellphone. How thorough a discussion does it need? -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The discussion above was as much as most AFDs get and the result was clearly no consensus. Relisting seems pointless. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you look closely at the references, they appear to be rewrites of a press release from May 8 2007. The other citations are a promotional magazine giveaway, and the manufacturer's website. Addhoc (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a cellphone. It glows, prettily or pointlessly. (The glowing seems to serve no purpose other than sales appeal.) The "glowing reviews" mentioned above appear to be mere mentions, amused or admiring, of the fact that it glows. In my own part of the world, phones that glow in pretty colors are commonplace (my wife's got one; it was the cheapest phone available at the time that did other stuff she needed it to do, and she never bothered to look in the instructions for how to stop it from glowing and thereby presumably increase battery life); it's hard to believe that this is unusual in your part of the world. (And removing this article wouldn't "chip away at the encyclopedic coverage of this project"; it might chip away at the fan-obsessive nature of this project.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable product. So it can change colors in response to the season, time of day, etc. Big whoop. It reads like an advertisement with sources. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, with references. I disagree that it reads like an advertisement. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: You say it's notable; how is it notable? -- Hoary (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Six are provided. For one, there's no URL. Another is from SE itself. That leaves me with four that sound as if they could be worth looking at. This one is unavailable right now (probably just a temporary server glitch). The mobilementalism one is a gushy review. (Well, the site does warn you on that page: MobileMentalism offers you mobile phone news, reviews, articles and rumours from around the world. Read on, feel the pulse of the mobile phone world, and drool over the shiny gadgets!) And the review tells us: But it's not the features that set the S500 apart - it's its looks and its ability to change according to the seasons or the day of the week, or even the day. (As for the looks, they seem unremarkable.) The reghardware.co.uk piece, by "The Hardware Widow", is tellingly titled "Sony Ericsson waxes lyrical over 'nature-inspired' handset": it's a bemused commentary on what's said by "purple prose merchant and occasional phone supplier Sony Ericsson". The infosyncworld.com piece is an uninteresting summary of the same PR release. I'm underwhelmed. -- Hoary (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. This is what I point out in the nomination. The available references are either not substantial, or not reliable. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I honestly don't understand why they aren't substantial. We could rename the references section to "Notes." I think we can also trust them for the few facts that have citations. We already have a printed source. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every product released by a notable company requires an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a cell phone catalog or directory. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing suggests this set is something revolutionary making it notable per-se. Glowing feature is common (and annoying). The initial marketing campaign in blogs and reviews is nothing unusual and does not make a product notable. Wait a year, perhaps the phone will became best-seller and thus notable. Wikipedia should not serve as catalog of everything. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Spacepotato and Wikidemo, the phone is sufficiently notable. Do we need a guideline for mobiles now? RFerreira (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see why this was relisted, as consensus is that while the roads are not themselves notable, the content could be merged elsewhere. There has been no opposition to these merges after they were done 7 days ago. Specifically,

County Road 2 (Essex County, Ontario) merged into Tecumseh Road (Windsor, Ontario)

County Road 20 (Essex County, Ontario) merged into Highway 18 (Ontario)

2, 3, 8, 19, 22, 42 merged into List of county roads in Essex County, Ontario

The format of the merge is less than ideal, but that's an editorial issue. I am redirecting to the appropriate articles, as these shouldn't be deleted to preserve edit history. –Pomte 05:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 2 (Essex County, Ontario)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

As part of the WP:CRWP restructuring, the Essex County route articles have been suggested for deletion. ^Mitch32^contribs 23:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following Essex CR articles.^Mitch32^contribs 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and are likely permastubs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know virtually nothing about Canadian roads; just wanted to note that county roads in the USA aren't considered notable. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With the highway numbering restructuring of 1997, a lot of Ontario Provincial Highways lost their status. Many of those roads are still notable. Among them, Road 17 of Prescott-Russell County, Road 174 of Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality, and Road 1 of York County. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Abstain -Roofus (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jona than 03:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Road 22, Delete the others. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: many county roads are far busier than provincial highways (such as Ottawa Road 174), such as Essex County Roads 22 and 42. Most of them were indeed provincial highways. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible suggestions: merge County Road 2 and Tecumseh Road together the way County Road 9 and Howard Avenue were merged. Merge County Road 20 and Highway 18 together, though it could also stand on its own, being the longest county road. County Road 8 should probably be merged back into the main Essex County Roads list. County road 3 should follow CR 8 and be merged back into the list. County Roads 19, 22, 34, and 42 should remain separate as they are major arteries and the articles are longer than the short ones. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Major arteries" does not equal notability. I know of plenty of streets that I would consider major arteries that are definitely not notable. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. if that fails, perhaps merge them all back into the main list article? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, so long as none of these routes are separate articles and clogging your Wikiwork. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take just a few minutes to do, and i can expand on them while i'm at it. after this, i'll redirect the articles back to the list, pending consensus approval on that. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

County roads 2, 3, 8, and 20 can now be removed/deleted/redirected. Working on the rest now...RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fin. Done. Complete. :) I've merged the county roads back into the list, copying the data. if consensus approves of this, then i'll update my vote to delete for the articles. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roads at the county level are not inherently notable; very few of them assert notability at all and none of them have references. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability. I'd suggest merging into a list (this seems to have somewhat happened already). --Son (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge CR 2, CR 22, and CR 42 into Highway 2 and CR 20 into Highway 18. Merge the others into a list or elsewhere. It should be noted that several of these have no AFD tags on the articles. --NE2 09:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NE2. And based on RingtailedFox note above, merging has been done so all that's left is to redirect. --Polaron | Talk 18:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They look pretty decent sized articles, but they're unorganized - but I must keep in mind I'm a US Road guy - whatever may be in existence for Ontario's county roads probably will be different from what U.S. has - but I look closer and I see all of these and say "hmm - do these follow those standards at all?" My reply would be "no they do not." Also - I see no references. How long were these articles in existence without references? All roads (no pun intended) lead to the lack of references. I'd say unless references are found - Delete all otherwise Merge as per Son, NE2, Polaron — master son^{T - C} 18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP --What's up--too much time on hands over this holiday season?? Bacl-presby (talk)
- Is there a real reason why you want these articles kept? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: please bear in mind that Ontario is the ONLY province or territory in Canada that has a numbered county road system. As well, County Road 22's being upgraded to a freeway as we speak, so i think that's notable. Manning Road (CR 19) is constantly the focus of a very heated debate between Windsor, Tecumseh, and Lakeshore on truck traffic levels, and how the trucks use that road to get towards the border. CR 42 is a major link between Windsor and Tilbury. Rschen7754: were you asking me if i had a reason why i'd like these articles kept? (if so, my reason is i thought they were notable enough to have their own articles). RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was asking Bacl-presby. He gave a really bad reason for wanting the articles kept - issue distraction. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--as stated, seems a lot of Afd's happen when folks are on-line too long (Christmas Break)--so, is the Wiki-capacity getting close to capacity? Bacl-presby (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please address the actual issue at hand instead of simply asserting that this is a case of "too much time on their hands"? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Dl2000 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the number of AfDs is down for this day. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per NE2. Better than deletion. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already done: the articles have been merged into the main list already, and i now change my vote to "delete and redirect/merge". RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Monroe Fisher[edit]

Article appears to have been created by subject I am not an expert in the field of exploration and adventure, so am listing to discern whether the subject of the article is indeed notable. The article also lacks any references. Whitstable (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I admit I am an inclusionist, yes that is a made-up word, and to be honest this one is a tough call. However, I lean towards keep based on this information; [58]. Happy New Year . Shoessss | Chat 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not just a letter to a newspaper? Whitstable (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL you are right, however that was not the search I was basing my opinion on. Here you go [59]. Sorry about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs)

Comment - the guy wrote one book, which is ranked as the 1,483,908th top-selling book on Amazon.com. Most of the Google results linked above are nothing more than the same bio blurb. No real opinion here, just passing on some facts. --Badger Drink (talk) 07:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – --Badger Drink (talk) please, if you like to make a comment make it more realistic 1,483,908th! Come on, Amazon.com would not even carry the book at that level. Shoessss | Chat 02:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually follow the link? It's showing as #1,778,336 here now. —SMALL JIM 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: Julian had 2 books published - see Amazon.com, one in 2000 and one in 2002 Julianmfisher (talk) 08:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Since Autobiographies are discouraged, since the article fails to assert the notability of the individual (except for two books whose total readership is unknown), and since I could find no documentaries filmed by the individual as claimed in the article, I am in favor of deletion. Further, a chronological listing of the visited countries is not verifiable per WP:V and not notable per WP:N on its own. Mh29255 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve sources. Come back eventually if it can't be improved with sources (seems to be likely that RS could be provided, given the assertions in the article). Avruchtalk 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Subject = author, Julianmfisher, so WP:COI is check. No WP:RS listed. Who cares where you've visited? Pure WP:VANITY. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of real notability through independent sources. (However, do note that many notable books rank well past a million at Amazon, especially if they were not published last week.) --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to be secondary coverage of him on "explorer" style websites. The WP:AUTO issues are not reason in themselves to delete the article (although all the unverifiable stuff needs to be stripped out). Lankiveil (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The main guideline for inclusion of any article in WP is that the topic must have been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:N) - in other words, there needs to have been significant discussion about the topic by independent people and those discussions need to have been quite widely published. I can't see that this is the case here. —SMALL JIM 12:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, guy is notable based on the single fact that he is a Fellow with The Royal Geographical Society which according to WP was formed in 1830 when merged with the "Association for Promoting the Discovery of the Interior Parts of Africa" which was founded in 1788 founded by Sir Joseph Banks. It was given a Royal charter by Queen Victoria in 1859. That makes it the oldest and most prestigous exploration society. A Fellowship is "an honour based upon the merit of contributions by an individual to the field of geography". Anyone can be a member of The Royal Geographical Society, but to become a fellow, you have to prove yourself by "involvement with geography (through research, publication, profession etc) and must be proposed and seconded by existing Fellows". Former members include Charles Darwin, Henry Morton Stanley, David Livingstone and Ernest Shackleton. The same applies for the Explorer's Club. According to that clubs website, to be a member of the Explorer's Club, you have to be nominated, then elected. Living members include Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to climb Mount Everest, and Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon. As for outside sources, Expedition News only reports on "significant expeditions, research projects and newsworthy adventures". I also noticed that Colonel Norman Dane Vaughan wrote the preface for Fisher's first book. WP search says Colonel Vaughan was a member of Admiral Byrd's first expedition to the South Pole, the 1928-32 South Pole flyover expedition. According to the Explorer's Club flag report linked in the article as a source, Fisher carried Vaughan's flag # 89 across Africa just last year. As an avid follower of exploration I know many of the most notable explorers past and present often distance themselves from the limelight, they are simply not self promoters. I see Fisher as a connecting point for many extremely notable people. Maybe he himself will be better known in a hundred years. --KaCelik (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — KaCelik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Fellowship of the Royal Geographical Society is "Open to anyone over 21 years and actively involved in geography or a related subject."RGS web site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 21:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I admit I am an inclusionist, yes that is a made-up word, and to be honest this one is a tough call. However, I lean towards keep based on this information; [60]. Happy New Year . Shoessss | Chat 16:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to vote again when an article is relisted, Shoessss. And you've reposted that "wrong" link too (see above). —SMALL JIM 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – First, it is not a vote. The piece is listed by an editor to get a consensus of ‘editors’’ if the article should be listed in Wikipedia or not. Finally, an opinion can be expressed more than once. Shoessss | Chat 01:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1: my bad - I omitted the ! prefix to the word vote above (it is in the edit summary though). Point 2: pasting the same !vote after the AfD is relisted is hardly 'expressing an opinion more than once'; it looked to me more like unfamiliarity with the way AfDs work. Sorry if I've upset you. —SMALL JIM 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks to be semi-notable in the field of exploration. RFerreira (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much independent coverage. --skew-t (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 as described. TeaDrinker (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Klock[edit]

Non-notable politician as of yet, hasn't won even primary. Most likely electioneering spam. Also appears to be a copyvio of [61] -- 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Dougie WII (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. Obvious copyright violation with page http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl26.asp?SiteID=1813&PageID=33817&Trial=false. Mh29255 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G12, clearly a copyvio per above. Article has been tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Binford[edit]

Delete unsourced article about someone who was head of a redlink organization; so nn we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's even alive today - the kind of stuff that anyone seeking a biography would expect to learn from any decent encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT: [62] [63] [64] Yng varr 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See this site. Apparently many people throughout the South in the 1940s listened to this man and respected him, with the consequence that Hollywood, wishing to market movies there, sometimes edited them accordingly. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a TIME profile is pretty much the definition of notability. I redirected "Memphis Censor Board" to him because it appears to me that their eras of notability coincide (by the time of his death the role of such boards was greatly reduced). Now if only Richard Arthur Norton would let me get a minute to edit the article ... --Dhartung | Talk 08:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found other sources as well besides those mentioned above and will add them to the article unless someone else does so first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough as is, what with the TIME profile. Lankiveil (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - highly notable if you follow such things. --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the feedback provided by Dhartung. RFerreira (talk) 06:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete CSD A7, I don't really think winning eighth times a seven-a-side football league composed by only three teams is a claim of notability. As mentioned on WP:SD, an article fits CSD A7 when it does not indicate why the subject is important. There is no indication of such sort in the article, so I think it fits well CSD A7. --Angelo (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inter Miladz[edit]

Not referenced; amateur teenage team without their own kit Aatomic1 (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC

Delete, I'm not sure what's going on here, but I'm fairly sure they're not notable. Lankiveil (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete per #A7, no indication of importance/significance. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The "Ladz" stuck with it and went on to win the league 8 times (octruple)." is a claim to notability of a sort, so speedy is not appropriate, but this is still a 100% non-notable team so delete ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail notability and is stuffed full of WP:OR. Borderline A7. Looks more like a running blog than an encyclopedia entry. Pedro : Chat 11:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy[edit]

DRVs and AfDs for this article:

DRV1
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden-Donnelly harassment case
DRV2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy

Seeing as the parent article got deleted per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff (massive BLP concerns), I've got major concerns about this article. What makes it worse is that there are no sources younger than ten years, which, in respect to BLPs, I feel violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Will ^(talk) 12:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy close Bad faith nomination per the arguments and overwhelming consensus to keep this at the last AfD. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD was eleven months ago. A lot can happen in that time - NOT#NEWS was introduced five months after the first AfD in response to the badlydrawnjeff case. Will ^(talk) 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed other than the BLP mafia has gotten ever more brazen in their attempts to censor Wikipedia. WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS clearly ask for articles based on secondary sources covering the event rather than the biographies of the involved parties. The case reappears in Canadian media up until today. All your feeble arguments to delete this article have been debunked 11 months ago. This is disruption, pure and simple. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remain civil. If it continues until today, then why can't I see any sources from this century? Add some information on its continued impact with sources ranging from 1997 to 2007, then I'll withdraw this AfD. Will ^(talk) 14:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is absolutely no requirement to. I have no problems locating contemporary sources, but I don't see why they should be added to the article or why the absence of such gives you license to ignore the prior keep consensus. I still see nothing that would make consider this a good faith nomination. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been speedy deleted, overturned at deletion review, kept at AFD, speedy deleted, overturned at deletion review with a rewrite and unanimously kept at AFD. The nominator appears ignorant of the rewrite, given the false claim as to what the parent article is. The rewrite changed the parent article to History of Simon Fraser University, which is the reason that this incident is encyclopedically notable, as amply demonstrated in all the prior discussions. Nor does this article have any BLP problems since the rewrite. Nor is it a biography, it is an article about a specific incident that happened at a specific point in time. I really doubt that the nominator even bothered to glance at the article before nominating it for deletion - the nomination certainly evidences that he/she did not. GRBerry 14:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history article isn't linked from any page in mainspace, and doesn't mention this case at all. Will ^(talk) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are correct and surprising. I have linked the history od SFU to the university article. I am however still unclear about he role of the history article in all this. --Bduke (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new parent article is in fact Simon Fraser University, not History of Simon Fraser University, which looks like an abandoned attempt to branch out the history section from the SFU article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Catchpole (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Comment GRBerry seems, as usual, to have it quite right. I would observe, largely unrelatedly but for the sake of clarity, that Rachel Marsden was not, to be sure, deleted pursuant to any specific ArbCom action (the ArbCom, after all, do not make policy or take editorial decisions, and I cannot imagine that the ArbCom would ever mandate the deletion of any specific article or even set forth an interpretation of policy that would arrogate absolutely the community's right to determine the policy-guided disposition of articles), but, instead, consistent with (an interpretation of) WP:BLP; the link to the Bdj RfAr in the deletion summary means only to suggest that undeletion in the absence of a consensus for the restoration of Rachel Marsden as, for instance, a redirect to the instant page, is to be disfavored. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden is, one supposes, a bit more on point, but there is, of course, nothing there that should concern us with respect to the present version of the instant article, nor, for that matter, to our recreating Rachel Marsden as a redirect to the underlying page, something that I might propose at DRV. Joe 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete this article. It outlines an incident that clearly had a real influence on the University. I would not however be opposed to an appropriate merge of the content to the University article or the History of SFU article, but not if this was an excuse to delete most of the content. --Bduke (talk) 07:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple participants in the last AfD had been participating in the Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) discussion at around that time and took its principles into account (this is a classic example of written policy lagging behind de facto policy). To the nominator: If you can't find in-depth clearly non-news sources on the topic, you missed the third item in the External Links section. If you don't know that this was still being heavily discussed in at least one reliable source halfway across the country two and a half years after the story broke, you didn't read the second DRV or AfD. If you can't find reliable sources referring to this incident in 2007, you didn't do a Google News search for Rachel Marsden, heck you didn't do a Google search for Rachel Marsden. If you don't know that a 2004 book by a criminology professor was partially inspired by the event, you didn't read the article Talk page. Oh, and the event is on Google Scholar too, as noted in the second DRV. I recommend withdrawal of a very poorly researched nomination. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 10:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus can change, but notability can only increase. –Pomte 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article provides noteworthy information about Canadian university system. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
*Delete Notability certainly can decrease over time and this entry proves it. 209.217.75.171 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Struck post of self-declared banned user: [65] Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kla’quot, the Google scholar results are particularly convincing. RFerreira (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or include every other university sexual harassment scandal. 64.230.106.232 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOFIXIT. We're not going to delete this article simply because we don't have articles relating to every similar topic. John254 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above is the third edit of 64.230.106.232 (talk · contribs). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the references cited in Simon_Fraser_University_1997_harassment_controversy#References provide evidence of sufficient coverage of this topic in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 17:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Simon Fraser University. What is the "Simon Fraser harassment controversy?" This article says that the harassment controversy is that a student filed a claim of harassment, the coach was fired, got a new lawyer, and was reinstated. The fact that the University appointed an independent body to review its harassment procedures, that 11 other cases were overturned, and that the President resigned, are presented as mere Aftermath. I beg to differ; the controversy is that the University found its procedures for dealing with sexual harassment were woefully flawed and reinstated 11 former defendants. The initiating case is important, but is not the crux of the matter. Ordinarily, the decision of how to frame an article is a matter of editorial discretion, with differing views discussed until a consenus forms. Here, the matter becomes one of BLP concerns, since this article is being used as a COATRACK to attack Rachel Marsden. Merge to Simon Fraser University and refocus on the larger issue, not the initiating case. Thatcher 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article focuses excessively on Rachel Marsden, the solution would be to edit it to place the events in context, not to merge the content to Simon Fraser University, where it won't easily fit. Sometimes WP:BLP problems need to be resolved editorially -- deletion isn't an acceptable cure for everything that ails Wikipedia articles. John254 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article reference 14 "Simon Fraser cites mismanagement, reopens harassment cases", Canadian Press Newswire, October 25, 1997" is quite good and strikes the right balance, mentioning Marsden but focusing on the fact that the Sexual Harassment director improperly picked the hearing board members and her choices were approved by the Univ President, who later resigned. Why not merge; as this was a university-wide event, and we have an article on the university that is not excessively long, what is the reason to maintain it as a fork? (AFAIK, the reason it was started as a fork is to hold content that was removed from Rachel Marsden after arbitration.) Thatcher 18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was started in February 2006, some months before the arbitration case opened. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Unfortunately the editor who started it was cautioned in the RM arbitration case, so my opinion that this is a Coatrack does not change. Thatcher 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we merge too much of this content to Simon Fraser University, it might constitute undue weight with respect to our coverage of the university -- we don't want to make it appear as though a significant portion of the students at this institution are being harassed. John254 18:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Where the information is would seem to me to be irrelevant. If having two paragraphs on this incident is undue weight in the SFU article, then surely it gives it even more weight to place it in a separate article. And you seem to miss the point of the article--it is not that large numbers of students were harassed, it is that eleven harassment cases were overturned because the university used shoddy procedures to investigate and adjudicate them. Having a separate article seems to be Coatrack Fork (not quite the same as a POV fork, but similarly problematic.) Thatcher 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not undue weight to have an article dedicated to this specific controversy, any more than our article devoted to cats gives felines undue weight in the world of mammals. However, just as an extensive discussion of cats in the mammal article might constitute undue weight, an extensive discussion of this incident in the article concerning the university at which it occurred would likewise be problematic from an NPOV perspective. John254 19:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point but there is also some tension between your argument and the idea that we don't do unnecessary forks. Keeping separate or merging is not a terribly great distinction. Thatcher 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like I mentioned in the talk page of Rachel Marsden before it got deleted, I don't know the entire history of all this repeated deletion-recreation-stubification-rewrite-deletion cycle of Rachel Marsden but she is notable and deserves an article. If there are BLP issues with this article, find a version in history that doesn't have BLP issues and revert to that version and if necessary use oversight. Please do the same with Rachel Marsden rather than leaving it salted. She is far beyond even borderline notable and deserves an article. Perhaps this article could be merged with a recreated Rachel Marsden article but let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Current Democracy Fellows". USAID. Retrieved 2008-01-02.

[2] Thompson, Carolyn (January 2, 2008). "Slain Diplomat Was Devoted to Africa". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-01-02.

[1]

[2]