Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

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 keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments for Drivers[edit]

Assisting nominator with technical aspects; rationale for deletion to be added here. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete it- I am the nominator, and I am not surprised this is the 3rd time around. Simply put, the page does not appear to be either notable or even capable of being so. As the second nominator noted: "This list is a one-time press release, and probably fails the unofficial ten-year test of notability". That's really all it is, a one off press release. If we had a page for every insignificant press release the vatican made, we'd have thousands of such pages at least.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the previous AfD was probably wrongly decided, it was 2-1 in favour of deletion, and only escapes through a ridiculously generous admin closure of no consensus.JJJ999 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2–1 does sound to me like a "no consensus". If it were 20–10, I might say otherwise. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "2-1" literally, it was something like 10-5, I can't remember from memory.JJJ999 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the claim that there were millions of G-hits, is completely false. There are 580 or so, http://www.google.de/search?q=%22commandments+for+drivers%22+%2B+vatican&hl=de&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&start=580&sa=N and most are not even sources, they are literally myspaces and blogs of random religiously minded people, with remarks like "hey, did you read this, it is not a joke! they really said this!"JJJ999 (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- note' FWIW, The 1st AfD was closed as a bad faith nom. DGG (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It got a lot of media coverage, and the article is very well-sourced. I'd say a papal edict (rather than a "press release") that gets significant media buzz is notable enough for Wikipedia. It shows (I think) that the Church is trying to make itself more relevant to the age we're living in. Could use some cleanup though. -FrankTobia (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article still bears the marks of last summer's media frenzy (when it was created), but the nominator's characterization of a teaching document to all the clergy and to lay pastoral workers as a "press release" suggests, on an assumption of good faith, a lack of awareness of what type of document this is. It will be cited in any future pastoral and theological considerations concerning road users and street people. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify things a little: the first AfD was disruptive; and the second was instituted when the article looked like this. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a pastoral letter, not a press release. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, it will be such bull if this survives. Everything the Pope says will become noteworthy. Didn't you vote delete last time DGG?JJJ999 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the only notability seems to be it was in the news. But why? Apparently more due to its cornyness than to its content. This is more like a meme than anything else and a trivial one at that. David D. (Talk) 02:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the references provided in Ten_Commandments_for_Drivers#References indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 03:44, 2 February 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 by Rettetast (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G12, blatant copyright infringement. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas O'Grady[edit]

O'Grady is the mayor of a small town, and is a candidate to be nominated for Ohio's 10th congressional district. Nothing spectacular yet. Also, this article reads like a political ad, in which the subject has "a strong history of community service", is "committed to government becoming more efficient", "has been tireless in his efforts to serve the residents of North Olmsted, and will continue to work to improve the conditions for all in Northeast Ohio", etcetera. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:53, 28 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. Core desat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Crystal Rod (film)[edit]

Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE. There is no source as well that verifies its notability. So, it fails at verifiability as well. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I heard this user (who have created this article) doesn't take it easily when he finds any of his article gets tagged for AfD and likes to show his anger in the form of vandalism at respective user's page (who tagged). I would like to draw his attention to the fact that we are all here for the betterment of Wikipedia and we don't have any personal intention to attack you. You may notice that everyone voted for the deletion of your article which eventually proves that it really lacks at some WP policies. Hope you will be more tolerant in future and wishing you a nice Wikipedia journey. Cheers. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:FILM. Author might possibly have a WP:COI (Ty is a common nickname for Tyler, who is one of the characters). Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a posting the other day of a novel by this title. Also unreferenced and posted by the author. Writing style, content, etc., indicate this is the same person. Bagheera (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a vanity page for a production company that has yet to release anything. Notability and verifiability are non-existent. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to WP:NOTE and Wikipedia:Notability (films) guidelines. -- The Anome (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: article fails to assert notability per WP:N, is not referenced per WP:V and qualifies as WP:CRYSTAL. Mh29255 (talk) 00:22, 29 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, specifically, non notable band. This was deleted twice before by speedy criteria. Keeper | 76 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dobby & The House Elves[edit]

Delete. It's a vanity article on some non-notable people. All the references are used from myspace. It's a clear case of violating WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:27, 28 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. Core desat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squidgies[edit]

Delete as per non-notable activity related to catching fish! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also violates WP:OR as it seems that it is a clear case of original research. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge This could be a section in a larger article on fishing lures, if reliable sources could back it upBeeblbrox (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All information put in the entry is publicly available. There is no original research presented. I would like to link it to various other relevant topics (e.g. fishing lures) but don't know how this is done (being a newbie, I often contribute with editorial changes where I can, but this is the first page I have made from scratch). You'll find all the external links are very relevant to fishing lures in general and especially the new ones coming out on the market which I think are a clear example of technology creep. I also note that Wikipedia does not have an entry for technology creep. User: DigsFish.
Delete I'm sure the author has good intentions as evidenced by the above post. However, the subject seems to fail verifiability, as none of the sources look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unverifiable original research. Mh29255 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references from easily accessible sources on the web to show that the data included is indeed verifiable, and I reiterate there is no original research included. I guess I'll start looking at adding scientific references if it helps others to understanding the current issues relating to fishing lure development, technology creep and fisheries managementUser: DigsFish. —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm going to assume the best and say this isn't original research, in which case it fails WP:NOT#DIR. I can't see how this could possibly be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Redfarmer (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge I understand now the context - it would seem to me that it would be most appropriate to merge this topic somehow to the fishing lure definition. I note there is plenty of work to be done linking the various sections on fishing in the encyclopedia. This may be one of them - linking the fishing sections into the effects of fishing section in more areas to alert people of the need for humans to continually redefine the need to regulate their fishing activities. The effects of fishing section certainly needs some work. DigsFish (talk) 00:58, 29 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 per WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". This does not preclude a neutral editor writing a neutral, third-party-sourced article on the subject. Sandstein (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprint for American Prosperity[edit]

Delete as per WP:OR -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment This does appear to be original research, written by someone maybe a little to close to the subject matter, however, we should give them a chance to provide some references to establish notability and factual accuracy instead of going right for the delete. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be sources about it; the Post-Gazette has one, and so does the this. There were a few more but they were unavailable on their host sites, unfortunately. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 23:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information provided is accurate and by no means false. The citations used send the reader to credible sources. I am unclear as to why this would be deleted- can you explain the sentiment? The Blueprint Program was released to the public in November. If anything a Wiki contributor should have already created this page. Alexbrookings 11:55, 29 January 2008

Delete First paragraph is a copyvio of [1]. the rest certainly reads like a copyvio of other things on their site or published by them. The comment above seems to say they added it themselves after discovering that nobody with a lack of COI had added it for them--and, if you look in the contrib history, alexbrookings seems to have done just that. If it is notable, someone will write a proper article. DGG (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The accuracy of your information is not what is being questioned, it is the notability of the subject matter. All the references you provided are from the Brookings Institute itself, not from secondary sources as required by Wikipedia's notability guidlines. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:45, 1 February 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. Core desat 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical management company[edit]

Advertising Qaz (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G11 -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this is advertising. Looks more like a violation of WP:NOT#DICT to me. Redfarmer (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed, I must have been multitasking when I wrote that. Thanks for the correction. Qaz (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Redfarmer. NN concept, too. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was one of several articles that were created to post links to commercial sites and related trade organizations. The others should also be reviewed for deletion or moved into more appropriate articles -- Hospital case management, Independent review organization, Medical case management, Hospital peer review, Independent review organization, Medical peer review, Independent medical examination and Specialty medical peer review. Flowanda | Talk 16:31, 30 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. Core desat 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nondance Records[edit]

Non-notable label. Speedy denied due to apparently notable band Ether Switch but band isn't really notable either. Speedy on Ether Switch was denied only because it was the founder of Nondance Record. So the only claim either has to notability is that the other one is notable, but in reality neither is notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as nom - Sbowers3 (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, the band fails WP:MUSIC in every way and the label that they founded fails WP:CORP in every way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles. Antics05 (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per the reasoning above. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per comprehensive reasoning of Sbowers3. tomasz. 14:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I apologize. Clearly I misunderstood and I believe the artists misrepresented themselves to me. Is there any way I as the author can delete it myself? Antics05 (talk) 20:14, 29 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 G2 by Malinaccier, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Clicks To Jesus[edit]

I was going to CSD:G1 this, but I desided it wouldn't be fair for only 1 other person to see it first... ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. ~Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Me and my friends have gotten drunk and made up games too, but I don't expect they deserve an encyclopedia entry any more than this one does. Even if it does "kick ass"...Beeblbrox (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, I really thought this one should be speedied G1 but an admin declined it saying it really exists. Who knew? In any case, it's not notable enough for an article, fails WP:N. No secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gets 22 Google hits, and there is a comment on User_talk:Swatjester/archive8#Five_clicks_to_Jesus from March 2007, so not made up. I don't think it has sufficient notability (as yet) for an article though. Dloh cierekim 00:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(OOps, edit conflict already deleted) Dloh cierekim 00:34, 29 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 Drew Peterson Keeper | 76 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Ann Peterson[edit]

Subject is not notable and is only known for one event. There are a few sources, but it is only a news story of her disappearance. There is a tag saying that it is partially a duplicate of Drew Peterson, which is is, and also a merge tag there, but I find this unnecessary. Also only three pages have links here, two of which are only lists and the third the link above. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - I added the merge tag, to generate a bit of discussion first without forcing a timeframe on it, but judging by the first response, I'm perfectly content to go this route. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Information already at Drew Peterson page. Patken4 (talk) 22:44, 28 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. Addhoc (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Verges[edit]

I am not sure what is to be done with this article. It seems that this is about a painter who was once covered by the Baltimore Sun. Most of the "references" are either broken links, links to blogs, mirrors of that single story, or mysterious links (like a page about weather). All in all, and having googled him, he does not strike me as notable. Goochelaar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in concurrence with nom. Almost sounds autobiographical. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should notify the author of the article, 70.198.25.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Also, here's a link to the AfC request and acceptance: Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-07-12#Stephen Verges. Powers ^T 00:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In reviewing the original AFC submission, I think I know why I accepted it. It wasn't a high quality submission, to be sure, but AFC guidelines require only one reliable third-party source, and the Sun article certainly qualifies. I have no objections to deletion if the consensus is that the stricter Notability guidelines are not met. Powers ^T 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 17:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Modernist (talk) 18:24, 3 February 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 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awkward turtle[edit]

Non-notable hand gesture, no sources to show any notability. Prod removed by anon, bringing to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is more something that should go on UrbanDictionary.com. The style that the article was currently written in doesn't really help (the sign is often used "between teenagers." ... come on!). - SuperOctave (talk)
Delete - Looks dangerously like a thing made up one day. Goochelaar (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Weak keep - Perhaps my opinion was a bit rash. Definitely not a thing made up one day (or perhaps so, but everything must have been made up one day or another, even the word "cellar door"): there are several Ghits, mostly not-so-notable, YouTube videos and the like, but perhaps these could qualify as a source: [2] and [3], while here there is a column titled "Awkward turtle". Goochelaar (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:NFT - only notability assertion is that it is popular with teenagers. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I've heard of this, I don't believe notability can yet be established. -Verdatum (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If someone could produce at least one reference to establish notability, keep. Otherwise it's a clear-cut case of original research.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If my memory serves me correctly, the gesture being described is actually the American Sign Language sign for the word "sea turtle" (not to be confused for the sign for the terrestrial turtle, which is completely different). I don't so much know about this gesture's notability aside from this, though I have seen it used in the context described. A quick Google search turns up this source which says: "During an uncomfortable silence, someone will mimic a turtle with his or her hands. They'll put their right hand fully on top of the back of the left, both hands pointed away, thumbs wiggling. And, with a straight face, they'll say, 'Awkward Turtle.'" Searching Google News for all dates turns up varying amounts of coverage, mostly from college newspapers, from around the country. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into type of gesture as "Awkward turtle." A lot can be removed, and because there's already a list of gestures, I think it belongs in that list. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This isn't an encyclopaedic topic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This gesture is about as common among young people as a high-five or finger snaps. While the mainstream media rarely covers emerging trends like this, it definitely is something that someone from the general population could witness or hear about and want to know more about-- hence, it's definitely encyclopedic. I agree that more sources should be added, however- perhaps a notable blog has mentioned the phenomenon. Also, what about the name? Wikipedia articles usually omit "the", right? Zatchmort (talk) 20:18, 31 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. Core desat 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex Machina (The Matrix)[edit]

This article is an in-universe plot repetition with very limited notability, and is already covered by the Matrix Revolutions movie articles plot section. The one unreferenced "fact" could easily be a part of the Development section of the Revolutions article, and there is no need for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked at this article, and I tried to figure out how to clean it up or trim it down to show more concretely that it is undeserving of an article, but it's so completely in-universe, it involves unverifiable fan speculation, it's almost entirely WP:PLOT, it fails WP:FICT for the establishment of notability. Even if this article could someday be recreated, I see nothing worth salvaging here. -Verdatum (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete the whole article is written "in-universe" and is fairly clear case of original research. I agree that the article on the movie covers everything here and does a better job of it Beeblbrox (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Not worth keeping. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of programs and machines in the Matrix series. Alientraveller (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deus Ex Machina already has a section in that article, and it looks to be quite a bit better (in terms of WP:WAF) than anything and everything in this article. What is worth merging? -Verdatum (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it's a simple matter of a redirect. Alientraveller (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect isn't worthwhile if no one would reasonably search "Deus Ex Machina (The Matrix)", but Yeah, I suppose on second thought I have no problem with it being a redirect. -Verdatum (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect; in-universe content mixed with speculation and void of real-world context doesn't make this encyclopedic. It is finished! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:12, 1 February 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) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hotwiring[edit]

This article not only contains "how to" instructions (a violation of Wikipedia policy), but describes how to commit a serious crime. Simply editing the article and removing it would leave it in the archives for others to view. This article should be deleted and rewritten without these instructions. Hellno2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My experience is that there's always a dumbass out there who says "take the how-to part out and it'll be fine", but anyone who knows how to review an edit history will know how to hot wire a car too. In the case of giving a step by step on how to on how a child can build a bomb out of household materials, or commit a felony, a delete and start-over is the answer. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid encyclopedic topic. Catchpole (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Trying to cut off a possible argument someone might make by calling them a dumbass is not very constructive behavior. That having been said, Delete and start over seems like the right course of action in this case.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing illegal about hotwiring a car; it is stealing a car that is illegal. Wikipedia is not censored; we don't omit information just because somebody might use it in the course of committing a crime. All that needs to be done here is edit the article to conform to WP:NOT#HOWTO. Jfire (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the greatest article, but an obviously notable topic. Rewrites should only begin with deletions where there is no usable content in the article or its history. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:The reason why I nominated this for deletion is that I thought the information contained in here could be harmful to society. Sure, Wikipedia is not censored, but that just means that Wikipedia contains information that may be inappropriate for people under a certain age, such as nude images or profanity.

In this case, the issue is not about something that is inappropiate for children, but information that can be used to commit a felony. Had someone written on Wikipedia how to blow up a building using common household items, the feds would be raising hell to have the information removed, even from the archive, so it not be accessible to the public.

As for the argument that not all hotwiring is illegal: Breaking into one's own house is not illegal either. But most of the time, when breaking and entry occurs, it is a criminal act. So we would not want that information posted here. The same is true with hotwiring.Hellno2 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously an article on "How to make a fertilizer bomb" would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we don't mention it in the appropriate article. And the reason we mention it is that it's notable. It's the same case here; hotwiring is a notable concept, and so it derserves a place on wiki. If you feel there are inappropriately detailed instructions, be bold and fix it. As I said, articles don't get deleted when they're fixable and contain useful material. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable encycl. topic. And its absolutely legal to do this on your own car. It is also legal to do this if you are from the police and you have to use/remove the car, ... --helohe (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The problem here was not the topic, but the instructional content. Remove this, which I did, and the article's encyclopaedically valid. It could do with a tidy by someone who knows more about auto-mechanics, but ok. Any concerns about it being in the edit history are over-stated. The edit history is not indexed, you'd need to know it was there and go looking for it. I'm sure there are other far more instructional pages on the net indexed on google.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Question I don't know yet if I am in favor of keeping or deleting this article, and rewriting it, and the nom suggests. But there is a big question brought up by this whole debate: should an archive on Wikipedia ever be killed if there is anything controversial about it? This whole discussion is not really about this article in itself, but about the archiving of older versions of an article. One time, I found an article vandalized offensively with the N-word, and it bothered me that it could still be found in the archive after the vandalism was reverted. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Only oversights can selectively remove versions of an article from its history, and this is normally only invoked to hide information that could be used to indentify or contact an individual off-wiki. In all other cases, it is generally considered that the need for transparency rules. However, oversight may also be invoked in exceptional circumstances, such as Wikipedia is being dragged through the mud over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles like these are notable and not beyond saving. Although they walk a fine line to keep edit wars from happening (eg PIT maneuver, edit war free for over 6months ) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia does not censor. Transfer the how-to to a wikibooks in auto-mechanics or something and expand this article to cover the topic in further detail. Lord Metroid (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's nothing on here that one couldn't find using Google.

Vala M (talk) 06:11, 3 February 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. Core desat 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAO131[edit]

Appears to be non-notable person. Only sources are blogs and self-published. Recreation of apparently speedy-deleted material. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete again (as I already tagged once), not notable, appears to be promotional/vanity. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks very non-notable and self-aggrandizing. Goochelaar (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with above comments. --Thiebes (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has similar significance as the pages of Lon DuQuette, Allen H. Greenfield, Richard Kaczynski, and Nema (occultist): they are all notable figures in the field of occultism; they are also all notable figures in the field of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy. Sections were removed that dealt less with area of expertise. His main contribution is a new Journal dedicated to an academic and non partisan stance of Modern Thelema - perhaps an article on this Journal would be more in store than one on its creator? Psionicpigeon (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the person is notable, demonstrate it by e.g. providing citations where his work has been reviewed in a major publication. Similarly, if the journal you refer to is notable then it should be easy to find citations of it in scholarly publications. If not, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. --Thiebes (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Already done once by myself due to the lack of any notability. Jmlk 1 7 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: article was speedily deleted yesterday; author recreated it and it is just as non-notable as before. Mh29255 (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete shameless self-promotion with no reliable sources citedBeeblbrox (talk) 00:35, 29 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 WP:SPAM. I agree with Goochelaar, nice work. Keeper | 76 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier capital fund[edit]

Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. No sources at all. DarkAudit (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if they have $300m under management, that's pocket change. Dchall1 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Not even trying to assert notability. Goochelaar (talk) 22:06, 28 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. Core desat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How Typical[edit]

Non-notable column that fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Dchall1 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no possible credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here --T-rex 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""Delete"" doesn't come close to meeting notabilty guide, reads like self promotion Beeblbrox (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Column was written by Michael McManus and is described here by Mcmanusmo. Could there be a connection? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - given that the same account created the article Michael McManus (writer/advocate), which was deleted as a speedy A7 nn bio, I'd say it's a safe bet. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 29 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 G11/Obvious Spam. CSD tag was improperly removed by author. Renesis (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Retail Brokers Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Speedy for spam removed. Still reads like an ad. No sources to show that this company is in fact notable. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 28 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. Core desat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digitag[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Non notable neoglism. Prod removed by author without comment. I also declined a speedy of it having no context- it does have context, it just doesn't deserve an article. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a google search and didn't find any hits that used the term in this way, so thought it had no context to narrow down what it was talking about. Is this term used in a particular culture? Office? Forum? However, "non-notable neologism" is a much more convincing argument. KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could not find any instance of this word being used in this way. Seems like original research to me.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:30, 29 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: non-notable band. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Rock Group[edit]

Incomplete nomination by a new user. On the talk page, they say:

Vintage_Rock_Group is non-notable.

Group has no singles on any charts in any country.
Group has no albums produced by major labels or producers.
Group has no members of notable former or current bands.
Group has no significant association with notable producers.
Group has no record of national or international tour.
Group has not toured with notable bands.
Group has no regular airplay in a major market.
Group has no gold records
Group has not won or been nominated for a major music award.
Group has not won or placed in a major music competition.
Group has no record of its work having been used in a major motion picture or television show.
Group has not been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

MediaMike (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]

Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Already tagged by someone else. It's a band that does covers. that's it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:57, 28 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 Nomination withdrawn with no argument made for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Learning Community[edit]

Speedy removed without comment. This page appears to be some schoolkid playing around on wikipedia. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Another editor has picked up the task since the original creation of the article. Will watch to see where it goes from here. DarkAudit (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a school in Telford - Official website. It has won awards (now on page) and therefore meets the notability criteria at WP:SCL. I removed the speedy, but you went to AfD before I could finish wikifying the article. --JD554 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Watching complete. Nothing to complain about now. Carry on, and thank you. DarkAudit (talk) 20:58, 28 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 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics S.)[edit]

Non-notable book; possibly the most obscure academic work ever published on the Buffyverse; queried notability on January 3 and nobody has made any case for it. Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a British perspective: possibly the most readily available academic work ever published on the Buffyverse. The "BFI TV Classics" bit means it's published by the British Film Institute, and is part of a series that is the media studies equivalent of a "Cliff's Notes" or a "Fontana History". --Paularblaster (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - if that's the case, could you improve the article meaningfully? It's completely lacking in links to reviews, etc. (And what on earth does the S. mean at the end of the title?) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "S." means "Series", but if this is kept I'd suggest moving it to Buffy the Vampire Slayer (BFI TV Classics). Personally, I'd be more inclined to a merge/redirect to Buffy studies. I can't see that it's urgently required as a stand-alone article (any more than articles on each volume in the Cliffs Notes or Fontana History series - Penguin Classics would be another kettle of fish), but it's not something that I strongly feel should be deleted. My remarks above were simply to give a fuller picture of the status of the volume and series (i.e. a lot less obscure from my perspective than from yours). To answer your question, though: the only reviews I can find right now, and unfortunately without being able to access either, are Mark Sinker, in Sight & Sound 16:3 (2006), p. 94 (which I reckon is morally independent of the subject, even though it too is published by BFI); and Boyd Tonkin, in The Independent, December 23, 2005. I's not clear whether Alison Peirse, “The Lure of the Vampire: Gender, Fiction and Fandom from Bram Stoker to Buffy”, Screen 48:1 (2007), pp. 137-140, is a review essay or just an essay that cites Billson (I can't access that text either). Loads tuns up on Billson's book on The Thing (for the BFI Modern Classics series), but that's been accumulating comment for close to ten years. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Add in this which indicates it's a horrible book, and I think you have enough reviews. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

query: is simply having been reviewed enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books)? I assumed it was more like: people have published essays and articles addressing the books themes or method; almost any academic book could easily have up to half a dozen reviews. [Editing to add:] there's an example of a run-of-the-mill academic text getting comparable review coverage here. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Hobit. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:49, 3 February 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. Now, about that cake... Core desat 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hutchison[edit]

Probable hoax or wishful thinking. Version of article when prodded claims he won a "Young Scientist of the Year" award, which isn't referenced and can't be confirmed with a gsearch. Prod is now contested, award info removed, but search for this name + physics still doesn't come up with anything showing notability. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The research facility is fictional, from Half Life. Either a hoax, of in-universe foolishness Mayalld (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, no references Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who deletes this article will receive cake. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and not verifiable. The Research facility in Half Life was Black Mesa, but this could be a combination of Black Mesa and Blue Shift (another game in the Half Life Universe). Irishjp (talk) 13:12, 30 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. Although the 'deletes' technically outnumber the 'keeps', the arguments towards keeping this particular article outweigh the deletes. Keeper | 76 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katran (Myst)[edit]

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within relevant articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Goochelaar (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough that I looked for (and did not find) this information while researching the backstory for Myst. Verifiable by the Riven game itself and the Myst novels. Katran would otherwise be the only main character in Myst without an article. The character is NOT "currently covered within relevant articles". TTN's solution is to redirect this page to a simple list of characters, which is recursive and non-informative. G. Thomas (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No real notability, not to mention the article fails WP:V. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sesshomaru. ZeroGiga (Contact) 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major characters in a really notable work are notable. Look for proper references. Many -- indeed most -- subjects are covered in some way in different aspects in WP. I wonder if success here will lead to deletion of the other notable characters, and then the article on the family, and then character in Myst. AGF, I hope that is not the intention. Itis only the combination of articles on the series that needs to establish notability--this is more correctly regarded as a subarticle, which does not need to do so, per current guidelines and also per every proposed version of WP:FICTIONDGG (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per G. Thomas as he is correct that the article is verifiable through the books and Riven the game, and the character is not listed or otherwise covered substantially in other articles. PirateElf (Contact) 03:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:V. There's no sources given there. Even if there are, then I'd still opt for delete or redirect to Myst, per no real-world context information. Dekisugi (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. TTN (talk) 22:24, 29 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 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of CEP vendors[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Delete Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ronnotel (talk) 21:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and further - the list has no reliable sourcing, it seems to be pure WP:OR. Ronnotel (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the author of this list, as suggested in the CEP talk page, and following the example of the ERP and RDBMS entries (which are equivalent).

Can you explain your policy suggestions? Isvana (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY not really applicable in this case. Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these? Isvana (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)— Isvana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Hu12 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Do not Delete. List is valid. It does not violate WP:NOT#INTERNET as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website. It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology. It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example. It does not violateWP:NOT#REPOSITORY as it is a separate article, just like the other "list of" pages. It also helps to keep the encyclopedic nature and tone of the original CEP article. Bardcom (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS--Hu12 (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- please link to where another list of CEP vendors exists? Otherwise surely this policy is invalid. Thankyou. Isvana (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, I've noticed in the past that you tend to point out specific points in policy, but you don't explain why the points are relevant in particular cases. This can sometimes lead to situations where I'm not sure what your point is. I've argued against WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY being reasons to exclude this list. If you disagree, please give reasons why. Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little disingenuous to merely point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason to ignore the point that other similar lists exist. The purpose of this guideline is to prevent people from pointing to perhaps one similar article as justification for another. In this case, your reference to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not justified on the grounds I was pointing out that there are hundreds of vendor lists. Question - are you arguing against the *concept* of a List of CEP vendors, or against the *merit* of a List of CEP vendors? Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you both misunderstand.

Isvana stated ..."Compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ERP_vendors and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_object-relational_database_management_systems - what is different about these?"
you stated... "It is in line with existing lists, for example List of IT Service Management vendors and List of ERP vendors as pointed out earlier - for more lists, check out the Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry for example."

This AFD is about List of CEP vendors, not any other article. Which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is an Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. A common argument used against the deletion of certain articles is that other articles similar to the one in question exist. The presence of similar articles does not validate the existence of List of CEP vendors. You arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines --Hu12 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, thank you for elaborating on your reasons for pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not pointing to one or two other lists as justification for this list. The existence of the List of lists demonstrates that the practice is commonplace and acceptable. The reason for the existence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is to prevent someone pointing to one or two other similar articles. IMHO it is not applicable to use this argument when someone points out that there are several hundred similar articles.... Bardcom (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've added a suggestion on Talk:List_of_CEP_vendors#Qualification_for_Inclusion--Hu12 (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you point to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, when your own contributions to this debate could rightly be found guilty of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just a policy or guideline. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, can you explain why you think List of CEP vendors contravenes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ? For sure, other technology lists of vendors don't justify this page, but you haven't justified removing it. Removing it would surely contravene WP:YESPOV - providing a full list of suppliers is a neutral way of defining suppliers, and the fact the suppliers exist are salient facts (see WP:ASF ).Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Complex Event Processing. It seems to me that there isn't anything special about this list that needs to be separated out into a separate article. I'm also concerned that this could be considered a linkfarm, which is why WP:NOT#REPOSITORY is being quoted. -- RoninBK _{T C} 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roninbk - excellent point; however (a) see the talk page on Complex Event Processing where this has been tried and failed in the past, and (b) the other computer technologies seem to follow this pattern of a separate page for listing appropriate vendors. I think most readers would be happy with either approach.Isvana (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that including vendor links violates WP:EL and WP:NPOV Bardcom (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... although of course you could argue that excluding vendor names / refusing to recognise that vendors exist for this area violates WP:NPOV too (ie bias against vendors, implies only an academic topic, etc) - this page List of CEP vendors at least redresses this a little! Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you like, simply put in a statement to say that commercial software is available from a list of vendors. The external links to articles and the complexevents website will point them in the right direction. I don't understand the reluctance to mention the early academic projects as it's an important source of reference and background reading for anyone wanting to understand the underlying principals. Same reason for referencing David Luckham's book - it's too important a reference to exclude. The article exists to provide someone with a sane, reasonable, balanced, and neutral information on what CEP is. The academic projects are merely for those wishing to dive in at a deeper level to understand why it's notable. References to vendor websites fail this test - they are not educational, they are commercial. A list of CEP vendors is different, as a reader would only read this article in order to learn about vendors, products, specialization (if any), geography, etc. Bardcom (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom: I was going to discuss your arguments but (a) that should go into the talk discussion on the CEP page and (b) I only disagree on one point (why is it not an indication of "bias" for it to be "fair" to name academic projects yet "not valid" to mention commercial projects or products - my argument is that whatever reason there is for listing academic projects probably exists for listing non-academic projects ... - but then apart from this reference list I can't necessarily see why any vendor should be mentioned, so the argument is probably moot anyway).Isvana (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF. To use the argument properly, it is necessary to show either that the article being considered is worse than the other stuff, or that the other stuff cited is not representative of the general practice, and should probably be deleted also. But when there is a considerable number of other comparable articles of similar quality, then there are two possibilities: One, it is in fact the usual practice of WP to keep such articles -- which is of course a good reason to keep; or Two is is the practice to keep them, but the policy should be changed to not keep them--which is a suitable reason to keep this particular case and try to change the policy. DGG (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violate WP:NOT#INTERNET as it is not acting as an internet guide for a website. It is a valid list of vendors of CEP technology and provides a valuable information source of CEP vendors. It is in line with established practice of existing lists, many listed here Category:Lists_of_companies_by_industry. Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#3 "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers"

List of CEP vendors exists to only to describe the services and products the Vendor offers^[4].--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not completely the full picture. The list primarily exists to provide a quick comparison of differences between vendors. At the moment, the only differentation is whether it's Open Source or not, but this will grow and become more descriptive over time. It does contain links, but the article would be equally valid without the links. We want to include the links as a qualification mechanism.... Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the title of this page is "List of CEP Vendors" NOT "List of CEP Vendor websites". The inclusion of web sites / URLs is sendondary to the list. Any suggestion or argument to remove the URLs should be made in the talk page viz is not a valid reason for AfD (IMHO) Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not violateWP:NOT#REPOSITORY as it is a separate article, and is in line with established practice of existing lists. It states here WP:NOT#DIR that "Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference". Bardcom (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1 "...Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."

List of CEP vendors exists as a repository of external links to vendors' products^[5].--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is not the purpose of the article. See point made above. Bardcom (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but a table of vendors is not the same as "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories". Here is a quick test (also mentioned in the article talk page): Remove the URLs (which are only there as references anyway). This is still a list of CEP vendors! Ergo, this is not an argument to remove this page (it *may* be an argument to alter it). Isvana (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TJ Spyke 04:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to this decision making process.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bardcom (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 January 2008

Qu (as a Wiki novice) - should List of CEP vendors simply be re-labelled as List of CEP tools ? Is it the "vendor" part of the name that is objectionable to some people? Isvana (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom, pointless list violating policy on wikipedia.JJJ999 (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry - is that an argument to delete the links (or rather turn them into references), and rename as List of CEP Tools; or a delete the entire list because you don't see any point and such lists are widely available somewhere else (PS: would appreciate the link)?Isvana (talk) 17:04, 4 February 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 independent sources establish notability of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bristo Camino[edit]

This is a non-notable fictional town, it's only existence in the film Hostage. The only source for info on the town is the movie itself. This specific location is not a notable part of the movie. The page should be removed per WP:Notability. - Gwynand (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect / weak keep. Name of town was integral to film, and appears to have in part influenced a couple of independant sources which may increase in scope (film was only released in 2005). Also notable that the name chosen is different to novel. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing but plot and speculation. No indication that the fictional town itself has any real-world notability. Pairadox (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's almost no content in either this or the related Bristo Bay article. Hostage is, in the grand scheme of things, an utterly forgettable movie and it's not like Bristo Camino has become some sort of cult meme. It's a fictional town in a movie nobody will remember five years from now and there is apparently nothing to say about it except that a bunch of unknown youngsters playing small-time gigs in the UK found the name cool and named their band after it. Pichpich (talk) 02:30, 5 February 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 vandalism, third article today by new user that is unverified and wishful thinking at best. . Keeper | 76 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (Assembly Edition)[edit]

Suspected hoax; no references provided, nor could any be found after a Google search. Same editor also created Blindness (U2 Album) and Annhilation tour, both of which were speedily deleted earlier for being patent nonsense. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an obvious hoax, no sources online, and nothing on U2.com where the majority of this is supposed to have come from. MelicansMatkin (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a crystal ball. -- Renesis (talk) 21:08, 28 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. --Core desat 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenophobia[edit]

Delete contested prod; has been copied to wiktionary and is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Next time, please use the criteria for speedy deletion RogueNinja_talk 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete not nly is this just a definition, I can't find any reliable sources to back it up Beeblbrox (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms isn't reliable? Not sure what to do about the article; what's the modus operandi for psych articles like these? Oc t ane ^{[improve me]}

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Nowra, New South Wales. Core desat 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowra Christian School[edit]

Non-notable school. No assertion of notability has been made, nor have any sources been provided that could support any claim of notability. Note: The school is already included in the article on Nowra, New South Wales Mattinbgn\^talk 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep I am the author of the article and member of school community. Trying to walk a line between providing helpful information while being factual and not turning it into an advertisement. (Help welcomed here!) Also learning how to edit wikipedia articles from scratch. I think the school is notable as a K-12 school using unique approach to HSC. Have also added more info about what makes school notible on philosophical basis. -- Ggannell\^talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article Nowra, New South Wales: school is not notable. Mh29255 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. The article doesn't even claim that it is notable - it's a shame that school articles can't be speedy deleted. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no assertion of notability; fails my (weak) standards. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a K-12 school, so there will probably be information. It is simpler & better to keep & improve these articles than argue about them. DGG (talk)

Comment If this "consensus" that schools are inherently notable came as a result of AfD discussions, then the only way to show that there is in fact no consensus is to continue to bring articles on schools that do not meet WP:N to AfD. It is a circular argument to insist that all schools are notable and should be kept for that reason and then use the fact that they are kept to support the concept of the inherent notability of schools. I still have not seen a decent argument for the proposition that schools are inherently notable and the meme of inherent notability has no backing other than the opinion of a group of editors. If sources can be found, then someone should demonstrate that fact by finding them. WP:V still applies to schools and we should insist on reliable independent sources for articles. If they are not provided, then the articles should be removed. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Nowra, New South Wales. Current discussions about WP:SCHOOLS is not clear if all secondary schools are notable or if schools are notable only if they meet WP:RS. Also some editors are not expecting the under discussion proposal to actually be used to support keeping schools. This article may also fail WP:COI per above comments. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nowra, New South Wales#Education. That way the content is preserved should WP:RS be found. Sting au Buzz Me... 02:28, 2 February 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, default to keep. I'd like to note that the frequently-cited WP:NOT#STATS is not, by itself, a reason to delete this article. The rule prohibits "long and sprawling lists of statistics" because they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", but allows "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." No-one has argued that this article is unreadable or confusing, so WP:NOT#STATS would not seem to apply. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completely unencyclopedic content. This belongs on uncyclopedia, not here. Its been nominated several times before, the links are found on the talk page. Most of the keep votes use reasoning like "This is a fun page" or "Pages like this make me smile." These are not valid reasons to keep an article around. RogueNinja_talk 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep use of the word "fuck" in media is quite encyclopedic and generates press, controversy, and even litigation. And while this article perhaps is less "high brow" than most, it's certainly more so than all the various American Idol also-rans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to keep things. RogueNinja_talk 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is what I said on the talk page: "This article has useful information, but I don't think it's very good as a list, it is never going to be complete for two reasons: People have different views on what makes a film notable enough to be in the list; different sources have different numbers, so it's actually kind of pointless to have sources, but if we don't, it's OR. What I suggest doing is making an article called The word "fuck" in film which discusses the usage of the word in film and we can merge some of the info from this list." I stand by what I said, the list is not going to work but an article might. Nominator, to a certain degree I agree with you, but the word fuck is prominent in film, so either merge into Fuck, or create The word "fuck" in film.--The Dominator (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is well sourced, it does not draw any conclusions (and thus does not synthesize new information). It is merely a list which does not violate any Wikipedia policy, not more than other lists, like for example World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. This is exactly what makes Wikipedia different, as the number of topics we can cover is much larger than that of other encyclopedias. Also, this article has not been nominated "several times" before. It has been nominated six times before, of which four ended in keep and two ended in no consensus. I guess it was about time for a new nomination. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not draw its own conclusions, but it certainly presents its own criteria: "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Unlike your example, which has a set ranking of 30 airports, the word "frequently" is unnecessarily flexible here. Why not list 200 films? Why not 50? Where is the criteria set? We, as editors, certainly should not profess to do that. In addition, the previous AFDs are not relevant here. Some articles eventually get deleted at their nth appearance at AFD; consensus can evolve over time, or better reasoning for deletion can be presented if it was not clear in previous attempts. See further rationale for deletion in my recommendation below. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why does World's busiest airports by passenger traffic choose the 30 highest ranking airports? There is no other reason than the (in some eyes) offensive topic that this article is so often nominated for deletion. --195.169.224.219 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't nominated because it's offensive (Wikipedia is not censored), it was nominated because it is an incomplete list with trivial information that should be incorporated into encyclopedic text rather than a list.--The Dominator (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would not work if incompleteness was an objection to the existence of articles. This article/list deserves time to mature, just like everything else. Keep.JamesLucas (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article chooses the 30 highest ranking airports because the sources its uses lists 30. This seems appropriate to me. Here, however, we're just picking out our own criteria. It's nothing to do with censorship -- I wholeheartedly support articles that cover vulgar content and only hope that they offer something encyclopedic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Article is well-sourced and verifiable (and amusing), but it seems to run afoul of WP:NOT#STATS. Would support merging the info to a more suitable page per Dominator. Kamek (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#STATS. This article is merely a compilation of statistics that hardly reflect the relevance of the word "fuck" used in films. The statistics is reflected even more strongly with the existence of the bar graphs. What is the criteria for inclusion? The article says, "This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses." Why doesn't pornography count? Why is it 100? Why isn't it 200 or 50? In addition, there certainly are films that are known for excess profanity, but many of the ones on the list are just compiled because of their count, which may or may not have any relevance. Films like Goodfellas and the South Park film are films whose profanity has been noticed, but many others in the list don't have that relevance. This would qualify as an inappropriate directory per this: "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." The large, large majority of the films in this list are not famous because of the usage of this word, aside from a handful of examples. And that handful is not substantial enough to warrant a stand-alone list. Such films with excess profanity ought to be explored with prose commentary in an article like Profanity in film, tracing the history of vulgar language used in cinema. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my last comment and Erik's. An article would certainly work much better than a list, and if there isn't enough info, we can always merge into Fuck.--The Dominator (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also mentioned merge above; are you favoring either action, or one over the other? Just asking for clarity. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for creating a new article using a small percentage of the info here, so closer to delete than merge, I guess.--The Dominator (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#STATS violation. I also feel that due to the need to create (arbitrary criteria, etc.) it is a WP:SYNTH (if not WP:OR) violation as well. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I remember Entertainment Weekly used to do counts like this on films like Glengarry Glen Ross (?), and it's kind of funny that people are watching a movie and tallying things like this. A "'fuck' count" indeed. Ironically, if this gets vandalized, it'll be something sweet, on the order of "The Sound of Music: zero" Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is funny" is not a reason.--The Dominator (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some people are taking this project too seriously. It appears that this has been debated numerous times in the past and the result was keep on each occasion. Nominating this again is attempting to game the system. Catchpole (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your reason to keep?--The Dominator (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith about the AFD process and those involved with whom you disagree. AFDs are recurring because consensus can evolve. Also, I'm not sure why the article's failure to conform to policies and guidelines is a reason not to take this Wikipedia article seriously. Please feel free to elaborate on your recommendation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to insult anybody, but I doubt this article will ever be deleted, since so many people find it amusing, and without any reason, vote keep, as long as these people do that, this incomplete list that violates several policies will most likely stay.--The Dominator (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD process is not supposed to be a voting process, so a few substantial arguments on one side could outweigh a large number of insubstantial arguments on the other side. It's a matter of providing valid counterpoints to others' points. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—it's an encyclopedic list with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for including a film has been determined by the editors to be non-pornographic and to be in the top 100. Why not pornographic? Why not the top 50 or the top 200? The topic of the article was created with subjectively decided criteria synthesizing various resources to give the impression of valid backing. There's no encyclopedic value established by any of the resources -- merely a mish-mash of figures presented in an indiscriminate and inappropriately statistical directory. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for avoiding pornographic films is obvious.
Lists of superlatives must have cutoffs. The presence of such a cutoff does not make the list unencyclopedic. See List of highest mountains, List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 100 career touchdowns, List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America, List of major opera composers (a featured list), and so forth. Spacepotato (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. Why shouldn't a pornographic film count? Why are we going with films where one may say, "Oh, that's unusual"? For some films, this isn't the case, as with raunchy comedies.
Good point, but the examples you've provided are known for these topics. Like I've said in my recommendation to delete, many of these films are not known because of the number of f-words uttered. The entries fail to be topical, especially considering the resources are family-concern resources in which profanity is part of their breakdown of the film, as opposed to newspapers or magazines that may solely have coverage about excess profanity in films. There's no encyclopedic reason to provide a statistical analysis of films that have not been highlighted as ones that "most frequently use the word" 'fuck'". There is no real-world significance or relevance to many of these entries' number of f-words uttered; in nearly all the cases, the excess profanity are not what makes the film known (with exceptions like Goodfellas and South Park). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say why porno films aren't included is obvious, there are a few movies that are well known for swearing, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut holds a Guinness world record, but I don't see why most of the others are more notable than pornographic films.--The Dominator (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable subject - clear issue with censorship implications etc. Spacepotato sums it up well above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has said anything about wanting to censor this article, so please assume good faith that there could be other reasons besides what you mistakenly perceive. In addition, what is the notable subject? There is no real-world context provided about this list of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" -- the entries, most of which are not known for excess profanity, are compiled into a directory for statistical purposes. It fails to provide encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant censorship in the world with various film classifications etc. not wikipedia. Censorship and film ratings are highly controversial areas in cinema studies. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand what you mean now. But the list doesn't necessarily address a real-world understanding of the topic. There are multiple films ranging from the well-known to the lesser-known, so there's no specific insight given. I've suggested a prose article based on profanity in film as that would be a perfectly reasonable topic for Wikipedia, but here, it's just number-crunching. The number of f-words in most of these films have no bearing on its fame, whatever it may have. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word fuck is arguably the most interesting and controversial word in the English language and profanity in general is obviously notable. As I have suggested, a prose article seems to be the most reasonable compromise we can think of. It is very hard to assert what film is notable and what isn't. The list is obviously incomplete yet it ranks the films. The only useful information is what comes before the list, which is not that well written "use of profanity in film was always controversial" seems POV and very vague, when was the last time some critic flipped out because a film had a high "fuck" count. I suggest making an article that covers
A) What different profanity is used in movies, including a sub-section on "fuck".
B) The reception and criticisms of profanity in film
C) A list of notable films that are known for its excessive swearing, for example, Scarface, Pulp Fiction, South Park, Glengarry Glenn Ross or Casino

I see no reason for a list. Ask yourselves, what does this article give to people who are researching the usage of "fuck" in film? A good chuckle maybe. A prose article would add information and it would be easier to find sources, I'm sure many people wrote essays on profanity in film, finding a direct count is more difficult though. Also the English-centered, the word "fuck" doesn't exist in other languages, and translations aren't usually accurate. Also in most languages there is not one word like "fuck" that caused controversy in media.--The Dominator (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cas -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody have given a good reason to prefer the list over the Profanity in film article.--The Dominator (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the list format is completely separate from that. Feel free to make that article; no-one is stopping you. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what is the point of the list? What meaningful content does it give a researcher?--The Dominator (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list is an extremely convenient place to get an immediate idea of the number and type of films involved. The FPM is fascinating. Many articles have both prose and lsit forks. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is hardly convenient because we have the chosen cut-off of 100 films. There's no true indication of the scale of films that "most frequently use the word 'fuck'". In addition, these films are hardly signified by the number of a certain word uttered. It still remains statistics compiled in a directory with no real-world context. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that there should be a separate project like Wiktionary or Wikiquote for stats, something like "Wikistats".--The Dominator (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Erik - yes, it does have real world context, of course it does - film is part of the real world, last time I checked. And there are many many lists on Wikipedia, and they are an accepted kind of content, so, if you want, vent your opinions about lists at an appropriate forum, rather than using it as an incentive to delete one list. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but you and I are part of the real world, but we don't have our own articles. The films themselves are notable, the word fuck is notable, but a list of films using the f-word a lot is not notable because it's a mere compilation of indiscriminate statistics through editors' arbitrary criteria that do not offer the real-world context (as in sourced analysis) of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". I am arguing for this particular list topic, not all list topics in general, and I've explained clearly that this is a synthesis of two notable subjects -- film and profanity -- in a list form that fails to establish itself as notable. Review the sources used for the multitude of these entries; they don't specifically mention the frequency of the f-word used. Editors compiled the bits of information together to make it look like these rankings really do exist, when in reality they established them themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like we disagree there - profanity has been closely linked with film ratings systems and given how it has been discussed I would be surprised if someone hasn't quantified some sort of list somewhere and (shock! horror!) it may not be online. I know people who have worked in the field of censorship. In any case, I may go and find some more commentary on this myself, but as I have a life and volunteer work in and of itself has to come after a few other things, I have no idea wehn that will happen. I'll put it on my todo list if this article survives the AfD.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced, encylopedic article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not encyclopedic. There's no core topic at hand. Look at the so-called sources -- they're not even part of a specific ranking, they're just family measurements that have been drawn together to give the false impression of ranking. And like I've said, most of these films are not known for the handful of f-words uttered aside from a few, making it an inappropriate directory. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that I am not proposing this deletion as not sourced, or not notable. Rather, as per WP:Deletion Policy I am saying it is "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia." RogueNinja_talk 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, but I disagree. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film as a medium of popular culture frequently uses provocating measures to attract attention or draw a character in a certain way. This is not different in other popular art forms and also for e.g. advertisement (like the fashion campaigns photographed by Oliviero Toscani). To have a special list about something like that can be quite useful, e.g. to demonstrate the use of language over time. I would have thought that 48 Hrs. is somewhere on that list, too. As for the number of 100 spoken uses: this particular limit is no real argument for or against the article itself. A new government normally receives a 100 day period from the press to settle and start working effectively. Only after that time you will find first comments about success or failure. --Einemnet (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a list of phone number is useful, too. However, please read WP:NOT#DIR: "There is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic." Note the because -- the large majority of these entries do not fall in the so-called category of, "Wow, they sure do the f-word a lot." It's a synthesis of family measurements to provide an indiscriminate list for statistical analysis. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to get personal here but the way you respond to my arguments makes me think you first of all have a personal problem with the word "fuck". I know this term is provoking, and this debate is not about phone numbers. The article Fuck mentions film, but not phone numbers. --Einemnet (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the word, but my argument has been based on the false presentation of this list. Films can be noted for their excess usage of the f-word (I only say 'f-word' for the sake of being amicable here), but please review the resources used to cite the majority of the films. They are family measurements, which do not comment on the unique aspect of the f-word being used. For instance, looking at Nil by Mouth, it has a sentence that says, "The film ranks among those featuring the most occurrences of the word 'fuck' in a fiction movie, with 428." Its reference is this: "At least 428 "f" words (with at least 3 used sexually, plus some similar slang terms)..." And that is all it says. It doesn't make the assertion that it ranks so highly among films with f-word usage. We took that number and synthesized it into this list. Perhaps a citation could be found reflecting that this particular film is known for excessive f-word usage, but many of the listed films rely on generic family measurements. It's certainly not a specifically published list of films that fall under this criteria. Hope you understand what I'm getting at. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepish per Carlossuarez46 and others. Referenced, and is a notable phenomenon. User:Dorftrottel 13:42, January 29, 2008

Nobody has once said that it's not referenced or not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is.--The Dominator (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it. References and notablility are the only real concerns. User:Dorftrottel 15:27, January 29, 2008

No! references, notability, NPOV, encyclopedic content are the four main things. Now that we're at it, it's not notable as a list, as a prose article sure, but the list gives no good content.--The Dominator (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "it's unencyclopedic, which it undoubtedly is". No it is not "undoubtedly unencyclopedic". Some people here argue it is unencyclopedic, whereas others say it is encyclopedic and thus suitable for Wikipedia. That is exactly the discussion we are having. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how it is encyclopedic, an encyclopedia gives research information. I seriously doubt that anybody is going to research how many "fucks" there are in a film, they might research profanity in film, which is a useful topic, but number of "fucks" is just trivial statistics. This article is useless for research, only useful because it is a fun page, but that isn't what Wikipedia is for.--The Dominator (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-NPOV is not a reason to delete. If you think a prose article would be better, I'm all with you. Just move the content to an appropriate title and rewrite it. No need to delete the material. User:Dorftrottel 16:14, January 29, 2008

Please read this: WP:NOT#STATS.--The Dominator (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... always interesting. As I said, I'm all with you if you were to rewrite it as prose. Maybe The word "fuck" in the media or The word "fuck" in popular culture would be plausibly circumscribed topics? User:Dorftrottel 16:28, January 29, 2008

I was thinking more like The word "Fuck" in film or Profanity in film.--The Dominator (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound good to me. User:Dorftrottel 16:50, January 29, 2008

Amending my original comment in light of Erik's very valid point, made below, that "there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word 'fuck'." As per my exchange with The Dominator directly above, a new article (or maybe initially new section in fuck) about the word as used in films could be well-referenced and worthwhile — but it should be proper prose, not a made-up ranking. User:Dorftrottel 20:08, January 30, 2008
- The current list should be deleted. User:Dorftrottel 14:07, February 2, 2008

Delete per well-reasoned arguments to do so. Having lists of things is indeed useful, but Wikipedia is not a directory, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. The list entries, on the whole, are not notable for their association with the word "fuck" and this article is almost entirely (well-intentioned) synthesis on the part of its creators. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 16:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With some of the other lists on wiki, this one should stay. I first came across this list looking for exactly what it contained. While I'm not using my example as a defense, it just goes to show that this is exactly the kind of information people look for on wiki. Take the example of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic. What this list conveys to users is just what it says. It doesn't presume to say which airport is best or has the longest waiting time or fewest flight delays or anything other than which airport has the most passenger traffic. Similarly, this list doesn't prove which movie is the best or worst or even filthiest, just most 'fuck'ed up. Seeing as 'fuck' is, arguably, the most controversial and commonly accepted as the worst word utterable in the English language, it deserves a list to let people know which movies use it to get a message across by containing the word much more than most other movies. While I agree that the number of 'fuck's in a movie does not define it, it's still no accident that these movies have such an abundance of the word. Writers know that it has an impact on an audience and can be greatly used to help character development. All that said, I will suggest that this list be enhanced to include trends such as directors/writers with most movies on the list and which movies have oscar nominations/awards.Chriscapitolo (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World's busiest airports by passenger traffic copies directly from the existing rankings (which tops at 30) in its sources. Look beyond this particular article -- there is no such existing ranking of f-word count. It is a compilation of family measurements that are not predisposed as one of the ranks of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have suggested a prose article, nobody ever said that the word fuck in film is not notable, we just said it's unencyclopedic. Think of someone doing a research project, the number of "fucks" would be irrelevant, what would be relevant is, which movies caused controversy (ex. South Park), which actors are known for taking roles with alot of swearing (ex. Joe Pesci) or directors that make movies with alot of profanity (ex. Tarantino, Scorcese). A list doesn't help.--The Dominator (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree that the actual word count is irrelevant. While I've never done any formal research on the subject, I find myself constantly referring back to this list to compare movies, etc. If I ever did do a research project (one which would acknowledge wiki as a veritable source), I believe I certainly would use this list. I realize I'm basing my argument on my own example, but I think I represent many others. However, if you must delete it, please at least keep the list somewhere else, which I think you want to. Erik, I think the reason we have never seen this list in any other source is that most sources wouldn't want to 'dirty' themselves with such a statistic, which I know wiki doesn't worry about. Maybe Maxim or Rolling Stone could pull off publishing a list like this, but few others would dare to.Chriscapitolo (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is ridiculous - this is encyclopedic content, just as much as Kitashinchi Station (thank you, Special:Random) is. Incidentally, this page is fun and makes my smile. Fuck. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to respond to the counterpoints provided by the other side, regarding WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOT#STATS. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I will provide a point by point counterargument of those. I am not, however, gonna argue over interpretation of these guidelines and policies in great detail. Many of the Wikipedia policies are open to multiple interpretations anyway (as is clear from the vigorous discussions here at AfD):
- WP:NOT#IINFO: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 4 (Statistics). The first sentence of that section reads: "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles.". I disagree that this list is confusing as it is accompanied by a clear introductory text that explains what the articles is listing. Also the criteria for inclusions, while arbitrary, are cleary defined and mentioned.
- WP:NOT#DIR: The only of the five points that are mentioned that applies is number 1 (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics ). In this case, I disagree that this is a loose association between the subjects, as, again, the association is clearly defined and, given that multiple websites are dedicated to statistics like this, are of significant cultural impact.
- WP:NOT#STATS: Redirects to WP:NOT#IINFO point 4 and is therefore redundant. --Reinoutr (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about WP:OR? User:Dorftrottel 21:00, January 30, 2008
It makes me smile too, your reason for keep is what now?--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you respond to the fact that most of these films are not made famous because of the fact they most frequently use the word "fuck"? Some of them are, but many on the list are drawn from the family measurements resources. In addition, the stats are "long and sprawling" because of the unnecessary "fucks per minute"-related columns that are irrelevant to this so-called list topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats reason for cleanup, not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-brain keep Well-defined non-arbitrary inclusion criteria, topic whose notability is proven beyond reasonable doubt, scrupulously referenced. скоморохъ ^ѧ 09:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the criteria is arbitrary: This is a list of non-pornographic films containing at least 100 spoken uses of the word "fuck" (or one of its derivatives), ordered by the number of such uses.' We the editors are establishing that criteria. In addition, the topic is not notable beyond reasonable doubt -- do not mistake the notability of films in general and the notability word the word fuck to assume that a list of films that frequently use the f-word is encyclopedic. It fails WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:NOT#DIR, and WP:NOT#STATS. Most of these films were not previously identified as films that ranked high for using the f-word, and editors here have personally established these so-called rankings, with these films having no relevance with each other. It's inane to assume that the number of f-words used in a film intrinsically connects them all into an encyclopedic list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion before voting, it seems that the deleters are always relevant to the topic, while everybody who wishes to keep just comes in and does something like "Keep, obviously notable" without reading through the discussion. If you'd actually read the arguments, than you'd realize that nobody says the topic is not notable, we're saying that the way the information is presented is not notable. --The Dominator (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What we're trying to say, is that the information that this article has, has been made up. If I made an article called "List of films by alphabetic order of last name of first-billed actor" it could be true and referenced, but not encyclopedic.--The Dominator (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" understand what you are saying. "We" just don't agree and do consider this encyclopedic. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then "you" are mistaken. User:Dorftrottel 08:07, January 31, 2008
    - No I am not mistaken, whoever wrote this article made it up, that's a fact, not an opinion. Show me a reliable source that has a list like this. Or show me a site that lists movies by the non-existent phrase "fucks per minute".--The Dominator (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was talking to Reinoutr... Having looked for suitable sources to back it up, I do agree that the article topic is completely made up. User:Dorftrottel 14:06, February 2, 2008
Delete per above discussions. I suppose we can wait for the rest of this series of articles with names like List of films that most frequently use the word "shag", List of films that most frequently use the word "the", List of films that most frequently use the word "sex" or List of films that most frequently use the word "Britney". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its entertaining and well sourced, Wiki isnt censored.Д narchistPig (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake, did you even read the discussion?!?!? 1. Entertaining is not a reason Wikipedia is not for entertainment. 2. Nobody said it isn't well sourced, just unencyclopedic and 3. Who said anything about censorship? I was talking about creating an article called "The word "fuck" in film. Please read the discussion before posting.--The Dominator (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to rebut a number of arguments for deletion.

These films are not notable for their use of the word "fuck". There is no requirement that each item in a list of superlatives be notable because of the list's subject. All that is required is that the subject of the list be notable. For example, Moose Jaw is not especially large but is legitimately included in List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada; similarly, Dayton, Ohio is not famous for its size but is included in List of the largest urban agglomerations in North America.
This list is useless for research purposes. The list points the reader researching profanity in film towards unusually profane films. Also, the list gives evidence as to trends in profanity over time.
The rankings in the list are original research. The list does not give rankings.
The computation of "fuck"s per minute is original research. Trivial computations are not original research. (Even if they were, this would be a reason to delete the FPM column, not to delete the entire list.)
We should have an article on profanity in film. This has nothing to do with this list. Anyone is free to start the profanity in film article at any time.
The list is unencyclopedic. In the absence of supporting arguments, this is no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Spacepotato (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 is the general argument and the rest are arguments in support of it.

1. The list you mention is different because that actually ranks the cities. 2. These aren't "unusually profane films", these are just films that happen to use one profane word many times. 3. Nobody said it gives rankings, the way the info is put together is OR. 4. Well yeah, that is pure original research.--The Dominator (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Erik's notes. While the list certainly made me laugh, it is incompletely and is missing many films which are known for their use of the word because of the lack of available sourcing beyond IMDB due to their age (Harlem Nights anyone?). I think the idea of a prose article is a good one, though maybe expanded to the use of all profanity in film, which is a far better way to discuss the controversy, shock, etc it can induce. Collectonian (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- same as most lists of this sort, unencyclopaedic, and limitless.JJJ999 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each entry being famous for having a lot of 'fuck's is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. The list is nowhere near 'limitness', JJJ999. I quote myself that "The lower bound of the list being arbitrary is irrelevant to this discussion, and applies to all top/most lists in general. The concern of the article is the most frequent uses, i.e. the top of the list, not the bottom, and the cut-off point is a consequence that is dealt with by consensus." It is not original research to restrict the article size for readability and to suit 'frequently' or whatever this article is named. Erik, if you want to make Profanity in film, then create it to complement this. These things can exist simultaneously, and Collectonian, while prose may be a 'better' way to go about it, that's not a reason to delete the list. Since we're not out to state the absolute truth, it's okay that the list is missing some films that you know should be on it. The list being incomplete is also a call for editing and research. WP:NOT#STATS means this article should not contain only statistics, so go ahead and add prose to it, which I've done a little. Steve and Orange Mike, there is no synthesis because no positions are pushed; the numbers are presented, nothing is concluded from them. Vegaswikian, if you can find sources for those words, then go ahead. The Dominator, if you want to use info here, that's a smerge, not delete, for GFDL reasons. –Pomte 09:21, 3 February 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. Core desat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Catalyst[edit]

Delete author of a redlinked book ranked #186,742 at Amazon.com, and coeditor of another redlink book ranked #881,917 at Amazon.com; no indication that he is notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to show that he meets WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one who created the article, thinking he was Jefree Star. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:39, 28 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.

I think consensus is clear. The result is delete. east.718 at 00:05, January 31, 2008

MoG (person)[edit]

This is a vanity page with major WP:COI concerns. Had I discovered it first, I would have speedied it, however the speedy tag was removed in good faith. It was subsequently readded whence I discovered it in CAT:CSD, but generally a speedy tag shouldn't be applied twice, so here it is. This article should be deleted as a non-notable bio of a living person. Keeper | 76 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a joke, right? Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. DarkAudit (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedily, as per nom. I added the second speedy tag, unaware it had already been added. Qwghlm (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly a vanity site --Jamiew (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - should have been a speedy all along. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep - Do you think this is a joke? MoG was one of the most serious gamers in the country for the past half decade. You should treat him with much more respect.Mogowner (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mogowner (and I'm sure your username is just a coincidence, MoG wouldn't write an article about himself, would he? </sarcasm>). See my message on your talkpage. Keeper | 76 21:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, I am not MoG - just a big fan of his. MoG has had more tournament winnings than about 3 others Smash tournament players in the US. He certainly is a notable figure. I don't see how his field of expertise, gaming, makes him irrelevant in an encyclopedia.Mogowner (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're not MoG, you just own him? Keeper | 76 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. No coverage in reliable sources found. Barno (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that pro gamers can make 5 or 6 figures a year if they're good enough, this is only above "just zis guy, y'know", and just as non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a fellow Smash gamer I can say without a doubt that MoG has one of the best work ethics in all of Smash Brothers. The gaming community and I respect him as one of the elites among Smash Brothers, and it would be a shame to see his page deleted. Gregor04 (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. Keeper | 76 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may think what you wish, but deleting this page will dishearten all of MoG's fans.Gregor04 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. I still say delete. Keeper | 76 22:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources cited. No data about any alleged tournament history. jonathon (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete zero notability and almost certainly a vanity/WP:COI case (see creator's username). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google search shows a few pages of unrelated things: a music-based community website, some companies, museums of glass, the Morgan Owners Group (I didn't check whether it's the horse breed or the three-wheeled British car), and so forth before we get to online people, and the first few are apparently about other topics such as Asian matters, "momblog", and so on. Even among supposedly real humans, Maureen O'Gara (tech quasi-journalist) hits far higher for having her published errors discussed on Groklaw than this kid scores. Average winnings $50 per tournament? My grandma does better at Bingo. Searching deeper than this morning, I still find no evidence of meeting the verifiability policy and the notability guidelines. Barno (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "He found his perfect match in the ice cream catering business,[4] where he makes as much as $10 USD an hour, including tips." ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daigo Umehara (third nomination). JuJube (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:05, 29 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. Core desat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awase Kenpo Kai[edit]

Does not assert notability RogueNinja_talk 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my Googling is throwing up only personal sites- nothing that looks like a reliable source. Nothing in the Google News archives or on Google Scholar. None of the cited sources or other external links in the article seem to be reliable. J Milburn (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete NN advert, sources are mainly primary or generally not reliable. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidene of notability. JJL (talk) 15:24, 1 February 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. Core desat 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Zoltan Øbelisk[edit]

Delete sourced to youtube, seems to fail WP:BAND or WP:BIO. was blanked by anon, I restored it to go through process here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. No real assertion of notability. MySpace and a couple of youTube videos are not reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:MUSIC: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He should probably be judged under WP:WEB not WP:BAND, but whichever, he meets none of the criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 29 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. Core desat 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dragon American Karate[edit]

Its been tagged at not notable for over a year, and it is indeed, not notable RogueNinja_talk 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per WP:SPAM. There are five unique Google hits, including this article and mirrors, for the term. There are 85 for the soi-disant founder of this style. [6] RGTraynor 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —RogueNinja_talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam, almost a speedy. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even an rabid inclusionist could support this article<g>. jmcw (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, ad. JJL (talk) 15:25, 1 February 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 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic prophecies (views: BUPC)[edit]

This article is not referenced and appears to be largely the views of one individual. The "BUPC" is a small sect of perhaps no more than 100 individuals and the inclusion of this article in no way passes WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in the sense that this was originally part of the page Messiah. The only real reference representative of the views of this group is www.entrybytroops.org, which itself has no publishing information, or even authorship (J.T. Lamb is a pen name). As the pertinent information on this page is already mentioned on the BUPC page, I suggest deleting or redirecting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever isn't already included in Bahá'ís Under the Provisions of the Covenant to that article. Otherwise, this seems like a POV fork, as Cuñado indicates. ObtuseAngle (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violating WP:NPOV - one of our core policies. I do not see how it can be fixed. Start over. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 5 February 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. Core desat 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMOK![edit]

I originally just put some tags on the page, but after some research, I realized that this martial art is certainly not notable, and possibly even a hoax RogueNinja_talk 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems spammy at best, it sounds like they're basically fusing some techniques and giving it a name. Nothing special about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in our country, nag-aamok (Running amok) is simply somebody that is very angry. Kidding aside, I doubt that a martial art like this exists or is notable. Joint manipulation is the realm of silat, weapon fighting that of modern arnis and grappling or wrestling that of dumog and buno.---Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. I don't think it's a hoax, as there is such a thing as Philippine knife fighting. The article, however, seems to me like a school such as "Tapondo" (a type of combat aikido originated from the Philippines) rather than a unique martial arts system. Starczamora (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment knife fighting is under arnis.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax, advert or just NN, possibly any combination of the above, the bit on physics is making me lean towards hoax but is could be just very bad promo text. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep legitimate system that has rising interest; many seminars being held on it worldwide (search for "Tom Sotis" AMOK). Has an article in Masters of the Blade [7]. JJL (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I do the search you mentioned I come up with: Websites run by his organzation, message boards, and places he sells things, but nothing that satisfies WP:V RogueNinja_talk 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The search verifies that he and his org. are international and active, does it not? I was using that only to verify that there is active interest in AMOK! as evidenced by seminars. The book verifies its existence and being selected for inclusion in the book is an indication of some measure of notability. JJL (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per JL argument vis masters of the blade, there is some evidence it's notable, and lack of apparent English sources for now should not prevent it from continuing, I suspect more sources can be adduced with time. also, the creator of the page, who has been around since 2004 it seems, while having a very infrequent posting tally, appears more like a single subject contributor, not a hoaxer. What sort of hoaxer has so few posts in 4 years, consistently posting an average of 1 per month for a handful of articles?JJJ999 (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs some secondary sources. as the article stands now, delete. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like spam, the links point (with some difficulty) to websites all but independent. It looks like a minor fighting technique somebody is trying to advertise, and this is not the place to do that. Goochelaar (talk) 10:12, 31 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 Nominator, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beckermonds[edit]

:Beckermonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Article was new a while ago and left it alone advising the author that it should be expanded upon to show WP:N. No additions of Notability have been added since and the article was Prod. Prod removed by author without explanation, Reverted and removed again by User:UsaSatsui with the statement "This appears to be describing a geographical location, which are generally considered notable (unless you can show it doesn't exist)." [8].

Delete I don't think that an article with "This town is here between here and here is notable" WP:N requires that there be something more then this. Otherwise, the location of my house will become notable. See Munster, Ontario for an example of what I'm talking about. There's only like 1000 people in the town and if you blink while your driving, you'll miss it... but the article has something that makes it notable. Pmedema (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD withdrawn as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography--Pmedema (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless once again, you can show it's a hoax (the article doesn't really have any proof this place exists). According to the common outcomes page, "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size". And for the record, 1,000 people is a good-sized town. I've been through much smaller towns than that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment Munster, Ontario was being used as a GOOD example of an article which shows notability.--Pmedema (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know. But just being a village is enough. And you were implying 1,000 people is small. It's not that small. :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Towns/villages/settlements are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, settlements are inherently notable. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 28 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. Core desat 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Thorpe (soccer)[edit]

Contested prod. Yet another player who fails WP:BIO because he has never played in a fully professional league. Delete per ample precedent, including this. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep yes he hasn't played in a game yet, but was drafted in the MLS and was named Division 2 Player of the Year Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although he may not be the "Jim Thorpe" of soccer, this player does have notability beyond his famous name, in that he's won some "player of the year" recognition on the Division II level. Mandsford (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think being player of the year in a minor league make someone notable. We don't allow player of the year from Football Conference teams an article, even though they play in a mostly pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's not true, most players in Football Conference and, in fact, a large proportion in the Conference North and South have pages. BigKennyK (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but it is true. The only players in the Conference who have articles are those who have previously played in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant achievements at an amateur level (championships, player of the year) do fall under the secondary criteria for athlete notability. Although what a player being drafted means in respect to Wikipedia notability has not been specifically defined (AFAIK), common sense should dictate that it falls under the same criteria. BigKennyK (talk) 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you have misunderstood the criteria. When it says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports", it refers to sports where there is no professional level rather than the amateur level of professional sports. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I disagree with that interpretation. The existence of a professional league in a sport should not automatically de-notabilize someone just because they had only participated at the amateur level. There are an awful lot of Olympic figure skaters, Olympic soccer players, etc who have not turned pro (although, pro options exist). In the past, many sports prohibited participation in the Olympics if you had turned pro... Are you claiming that they are not notable, if they did not go on to play professionally later? Neier (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Anyway, the USL Premier Development League is actually the highest level of amateur football in the USA. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 16:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but you are talking about playing at international level. This guy has not done that. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Olympics holds its own notability criteria. This guy hasn't played in the Olympics and has not played at the highest amateur level at a sport which has huge pro options anyway. Simply fails WP:BIO by a long way. If he turns pro and plays a game, recreate it. Peanut4 (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that I have deleted the copyvio from here, there is not a single word of text left. Kevin McE (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant - we don't vote on the current content of articles, but rather whether or not the article could ever reach an encyclopedic status. ugen64 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I made it a comment, not a vote. However, no content means no claim of notability, and that is grounds for deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, that doesn't remotely resemble Wikipedia policy. We're voting on whether the subject of the article fits the notability standards, which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual substance of the article. BigKennyK (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is of limited truth:

a) this is a discussion, not a vote;

b) Any article about a person must contain a legitimate claim to notability. If the article has no text, that might be said to be missing. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly recreate, as the orginal article was a copyvio, even though it was removed, it's still in the history, and there are no versions that can be used. Also I doubt a Developmental League player is notable. Secret ^account 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has achieved nothing. Not notable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless he makes an appearance for a team in a fully professional league. Robotforaday (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played in a fully professional league, when he does do so, recreate it. There has to be a cut-off point, and having played in a professional league is where the cut off point lies. King of the North East 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without prejudice, per no pro appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as soon as he crosses the white line, he's notable. Until then, he's a wannabe and not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 10:31, 1 February 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 Whilst only considered by a few editors the consensus and argument showed a clear call to delete. --VS ^talk 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha[edit]

Prodded article, prod was "not notbale in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people) . Google results are just Wikipedia mirrors. Also seems to be a relative of the article creator.". I am disputing the prod because I think this person may have some notability if sources can back up the article's claims, so I feel it should have an AFD. This is a procedural nom (for the moment). UsaSatsui (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been succintly presented by UsaSatsui the article will be notable as per wiki standards only if the claims that are made are backed by third party reliable sources. Moreover the article seems to have lot of very personal information which should idealy be removed. LegalEagle (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there are no reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The article is almost certainly written by a relative (probably son) of Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha (the user name is Sunnybondsinghjalwehra and he is from Belgium). Of course, you can keep the article if somebody finds reliable sources like newspapers or journals for claims like "first Sikh in the world to get a political stay as a refugee" and "first turbaned Sikh in Belgium" after winning a major court case. These claims are currently unsupported and there are no reliable sources. Things like leading a protest of 70 people and opening an International Council of Khalistan Branch in Belgium is no indication of notability. I can open an International Branch of Jesusland in Peru today. I can organize a group of 70 intelligent design supporters and protest against teaching of evolution in schools. Who cares? There are no reliable sources for even this. WTF is "Jathedaar of Belgium" appointed by "President Dr. Aulakh"? Khalistan doesn't even exist and therefore "President Dr. Aulakh" and Jathedaars appointed by him are of no significance. And need I mention that even among Khalistan supporters, "President Dr. Aulakh" is recognized as the leader of Khalistani movement by just one small faction. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:39, 30 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 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Neuhaus[edit]

Seem to fail WP:BIO. A failed legislative candidate. No evidence of "significant press coverage" of his career as school board trustee. Sounds like an upstanding citizen who had an unexpected death, sad but unencyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there are a fair share of independent news agencies that covered him, I can not assert with absolute certainty that it satisfies WP:BIO. It might be considered a close call. The man lead a robust military career, became an entrepreneur, and in later years; a politician. One of his sons is also an established actor, which has attained notability from the NY Times, IMDB, TV.com, TBS, and others.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] — C M B J 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the references you provided seem to show that Ingo Neuhaus, may be notable. Unfortunately, those don't seem to be valid reasons for keeping the Jim Neuhaus article. (See WP:NOTINHERITED) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO. Some minor accomplishments but see WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 04:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Ingo Neuhaus - Biography
^ Ingo Neuhaus
^ Ingo Neuhaus - Trailer - Showtimes - Cast - Movies - New York Times
^ Ingo Neuhaus - TV.com

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

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

The result was conditional temporary keep for now, and if this does not get translated, please relist this article to the AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Büyük Kaçğun[edit]

The article is all in Turkish and it have a copyright message at the beggining. I think it is enough to delete it. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright message says it is GNU, if it is not copied from semewhere else then there is no problem with this.

Delete What is this, anyway? DarkAudit (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be an article on Ottoman history; it might be worth including in translation, if anyone wants to take it on. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki then maybe translate. Andreas ^(T) 22:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and relist (or prod) if not translated within two weeks. That is the standard procedure for non-English articles. Why should this one be treated any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 29 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 per limited consensus and precedent. Keeper | 76 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Sherrill[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO. Only one reference listed pertains directly to subject and, as an obituary, seems not to consist of "significant press coverage" of his mayoralty of Bovina, Texas Bellhalla (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for public officials. No significant non-local coverage to warrant inclusion. DarkAudit (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ample precedent for small town mayors. Noble Sponge (talk) 10:04, 2 February 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. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. C. Trevino, Jr.[edit]

Seems to fail WP:BIO. References listed are all obituaries, and don't seem to show "significant press coverage" of his membership on the Laredo Community College board of trustees. Mr. Treviño sounds like he was a nice man and respectable citizen, but not encyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Wikipedia is not a memorial. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:20, 28 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. Core desat 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roach[edit]

No Texas state legislator by that name (Several with last name of "Roach"; none from Houston or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). No Congressman/U.S. Senators of that name. (One senator, one representative with last name "Roach"; neither from Texas or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). Article mayhave started out as vandalism. Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely hoax, no context, no nothin'. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:HOAX. It was created by anon ip back in 2005. Nothing since then. Redfarmer (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HOAX would not surprise me. Either way, no information on a Joe Roach as a congresscritter, and no information in the article. Just says that's what he was - that's it. Where's the beef? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:03, 28 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. Core desat 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beau Musika[edit]

This one's been recreated about five times after being speedied so I'm bringing it hear. Non-notable actor who has only had minor and uncredited roles. Fails WP:BIO. Also fails WP:AUTO as it is written by the subject. Redfarmer (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aw, Red, his birthday is tomorrow!!! Or maybe it isn't. This 14 year old doesn't turn up on imdb.com, nor is there a mention of him in summaries for Neighbours (or even another character with the name "Cooper") or Home and Again, which are long running Aussie soap operas, and his most recent roles are listed as uncredited. Not verifiable; if this is for real, then apologies to the kid, but even actors with recurring roles aren't necessarily entitled to their own article. Bravo to you for your accomplishments as a child actor, but you've got your whole future ahead of you. Happy birthday. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like something his mom or dad would post. Not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I deleted it once, and was surprised to find it listed here, but I'll play. Fails WP:BIO and judging by the creator's name, is probably a case of WP:COI as well. A dash of a WP:SALT might be useful later, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt BIO, COI, AUTO, N, etc. RogueNinja_talk 18:29, 28 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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Booth Revival Machine[edit]

Band not seemingly meeting WP:BAND, seems almost like no notability asserted but bringing here as anon declined prod without comment. Google very quiet. tomasz. 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's not very much on Google (being that the band is almost 40 years old), but to a niche community - The Salvation Army, they were an important cornerstone of music. As mentioned in their article, many of their songs made it into the every say SA repertoire. I really think this article could grow over time. Why not just give it a chance? It's already had one major contribution. Hobmcd (talk) 15:16, 29 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 for now and the article probably needs a major rewrite in order to keep up with our WP:MOS. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PrefixNE[edit]

Delete advertising for NN company Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I believe the two reviews in the external links section establish notability per our guideline. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Again,

I'm the creator of the Article. Fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say that I'm a bit confused with all of this, but I still know, this Article is not an hidden advertisment.

This is a well known product, with hundreds of users world-wide. you can Google it, and you will find hundreds of reviews and talks in forums about this. I barely wrote anything about the product, non the less, any hidden or revealed advertising.

I'd be happy if you can mention specifically, what is wrong with my post, I'm more then comfortable with changing or editing it so it will be as objective as possible.

Thank you,

- Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan1982 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2008

Very weak keep. Reviews do prove notability (barely), but the article needs to be written so a not to be a simple feature list and screen shots. This would fail WP:SPAM were it not for the reviews. A package used by "hundreds worldwide" (as stated above) may have a hard time being notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:28, 28 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 per consensus. The title Princess (film), according to the disambiguation page at Princess (disambiguation) says this is supposed to be about a Danish film. Since this particular film being considered is not crated yet, the delete opinions carry more weight. Once the "new" ABC Family film is created/verifiable, the disam page needs to be fixed when this page is recreated (and I can only assume it will be). Keeper | 76 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess (film)[edit]

Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Television movie which has not aired and little is known about. Says plot is currently unknown. Recreate when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice against re-creation when (and only when) more is known. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but needs sourcing. The article says ABC Family is already airing promotions for the film. That disqualifies it from WP:CRYSTAL consideration. Can be rescued if someone posts a link to an ABC website or something promoting it. 23skidoo (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely nothing on the ABC Family web site under the movies section. If ABC Family was promoting it, this should be one place they'd promote it. There is a listing on IMDB for the film but it's categorized as being in production and has no more information than the article. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, the article is crystalballery. Says it's under production, but it's under wraps and there's no known plot. Not even a release date. Per Realkyhick, no prejudice to recreation - but it needs to be verifiable first. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite, the link from the disambig page refers to the 2006 Danish anti-pornography animation/live action movie which probably deserves an entry NOT the ABC movie - here's it's page on IMBD:[9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavie78 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps delete then rewrite woudl be appropriate? How notable is that film you mention, Cavie? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite There is simply nothing here so it's of no value to anyone. If adequate references and information can be provided then it should stay. As it is now it's a waste of space. Georgiamonet (talk) 05:05, 4 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhaela Reid[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, however probably doesn't meet criteria for a WP:CSD#A7. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't meet CSD A7, but it doesn't pass the notability guidelines. The source given doesn't seem to indicate notability. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was already attempted to be deleted, but it was declined by W.marsh. The person contains claims of importance (published by notable papers and magazines) and was also interviewed by many notable organizations, including NPR (see external links in the main article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cartoon-Fan (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails WP:BIO. Media coverage (at least as represented in the article) is minimal at best; note the NPR piece is about an exhibit of Bush cartoons, not a feature on Reid. Precious Roy (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with reservations. Sounds like an interesting individual who might be notable in the near future. For now, though, WP:BIO is not satisfied. Truthanado (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Two interviews in reliable sources, plus the cite from PrideSource referenced in the article satisfies WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interviews in major news sources indicate sufficient notability. User:Dorftrottel 13:51, January 29, 2008
Keep per SatyrTN and Dorftrottel. Aleta (Sing) 23:24, 2 February 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. I've userfied BlinkingBlimey's new text, so that he can recreate the article with it. Sandstein (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Four Types of Pleasure[edit]

Prod (by me) and prod2 (by User:DGG) removed after expiration by anon IP without comment. Concerns were "Non-notable neologism", "neologism at best, fits into "made up in school one day". Encourage a snowball close on this. Jfire (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Obvious non-notable neologism. It does look like it was made up in school in one day. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge with Lionel Tiger (but delete Who's Driving The Boat?). While this page bears all the hallmarks of a classroom spoof a bit of Googling suggests that it is worth further investigation. A straight-forward Google search returns only six hits. A Google Scholar search for "four types of pleasure" returns 10 hits and Google Books returns 8 hits. Not that many, but a quick glance suggests that the work of Lionel Tiger does have some impact on interface design and usability. Whether this was known by the original editors or not is open to debate, but I think the term, given it's application in fields outside of anthropology, is worth keeping in some way. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that someone has used the phrase "the four types of pleasure" in a scholarly way, but I don't see any evidence that the content of the article in any way reports on such use. In fact, your links reinforce just the opposite -- that it's just something made up one day, nothing worth merging. Compare "physio-pleasure, socio-pleasure, psycho-pleasure, and ideo-pleasure" with "Arbitrary Categorization, Correcting People When They're Wrong, Solid/Liquid Interaction, and Who's Driving The Boat?" Jfire (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I was just about to delete these as an expired prod when the prod tags were removed, and I then failed to recall the title to bring them here myself.) The current articles seem intended as a joke. If a notable term does actually exist with another meaning then someone else can start a fresh article on that. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article on an inside joke between members of a Mock Trial team? Kafka Liz (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up in school. A slow day in the computer lab, it appears. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've taken a few minutes and re-written the article to refer to Tiger's actual four types. It needs some references to actual impact to establish notability, but unfortunately I ran out of time. However, hopefully this is a start that someone else can expand on. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort Blimey, but I think it would have been better to wait until this AfD was closed and then recreate the article. Rewriting it to refer to a different subject entirely while the AfD is in progress muddies the waters and makes it confusing for any newcomers to the AfD. Plus, it's not really clear that what you have is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia -- it's a question that needs to be debated on its own, and now it risks becoming rolled up in this AfD. If other editors agree with me, I would suggest you consider reverting. Jfire (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It would be wiser to purge the joke content, then start a new article with the real material, otherwise it is too easy for the jokers to revert it unnoticed back to their version in future. Perhaps BlinkingBlimey could userify the new content until the AfD is decided? Espresso Addict (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userify and Delete per Jfire. Lara❤Love 05:35, 29 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. Core desat 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Govende[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism; no evidence this had any use outside a small group of internet users. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Jfire (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ghits were mostly this article, nothing at all to establish notabilityBeeblbrox (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand you. Is "Ghits were mostly this article" supposed to mean something in English?

Delete as violating WP:OR, WP:NEO, and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just noticed the article wasn't properly tagged as nominated for deletion; it now is. Jfire (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an ongoing, notable phenomenon. There are thousands of hits for "govende" on Google.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rayshawn Askew[edit]

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, signed in the All American Football League, which isn't playing yet, lack of Reliable sourcing as well, prod removed, Delete Secret ^account 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punt. (In other words, delete.) The AAFL hasn't even started playing yet, doesn't inherit notability from his brother, shall I go on? Penalized five yards for illegal procedure. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He holds the record for most all-time professional touchdowns. That makes him notable I believe. I'm going to add a few references to the article. X96lee15 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 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 red card. Core desat 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Hasan[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, but I'm no expert on Italian football. It was created last October. The page name is Reiner Hasan; the article is about Domenico Lammardo. There are a few google hits, mainly in Italian. It was drawn to my attention by Towerman86. Tyrenius (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never heard about Domenico Lammardo here in Italy; the few google hits are about a lawyer called Domenici Lammardo or copies of Wikipedia pages. TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent hoax. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Red card. Hoax. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:36, 28 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. Core desat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kasimir Berger[edit]

As the article says "occasional child actor", fails WP:BIO JD554 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Lots of "occaional" actors out there. I think one just served my lunch the other day. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete falls short of notability requirements. RMHED (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article no longer says "occasional child actor", but from the limited filmography that is clearly the case. --JD554 (talk) 12:18, 29 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. Core desat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Albaitis[edit]

{{notability}} added and removed a couple of times. Would fail WP:BIO at the moment. Montchav (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This started as a listing for an artist with no real notability cited. Then it was turned into a huge SPAM piece by an editor with the same name as the subject[10]. I did a cleanup and then an anonymous IP removed a Notability tag and "sanitized" (blanked) the talk page[11]. So looks like allot of COI here. A Google search[12] shows the subject mass markets prints in a strong nich market (firefighter and 9/11 art) but no major permanent collection, monument, or significant critical note cited. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail notability. --Stormbay (talk) 22:40, 29 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. Core desat 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy George[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFD'd as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable local TV personality. Also appears to be an autobiography, judging by this slip: "She covered one of the biggest stories of my career, Hurricane Opal after just six weeks on the job." Jfire (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a non notable biography. The "my" comment may also be telling us something. --Stormbay (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:40, 30 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. Core desat 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Babbitt Fairchild[edit]

no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject's father was notable while the subject does not reach that level. He is non notable in my opinion. --Stormbay (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stormbay. D.M.N. (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Travellingcari (talk) 01:56, 2 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Box.net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not notable, advertising ~Ambrosia- ^talk 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mmmmm, freshly cooked spam! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Appears to pass the letter of WP:WEB per its WebWare 100 award, but the article pales in comparison to the other one-click hosting sites with their own articles (see FileFront, RapidShare, and YouSendIt). Kamek (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If we were to keep articles like meebo, Xdrive_(website)#Xdrive and omnidrive, box.net is clearly credible enough. I've been using it for 2 years, and very compelling arguments were made in its first Afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Box.net. Notably, compared to these on Alexa, its traffic is very close to meebo's and greatly surpasses the others, and is credible enough to earn the webware award from CNet. Gigabyte (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC) — Gigabyte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong keep. In terms of traffic, Box.net exceeds or matches (and is growing) formerly large sites such as Xdrive and Yousendit Alexa Rankings Box has had significant press recently given the announcement of their OpenBox platform and 6 million B round of funding. Box Press page

Notable Press Mentions:

Fortune The death of the desktop

AOL Money and Finance Is Microsoft threatened by Box.net? Should Google buy it?

PCWorld Store it on the web

ZDNet Buh-bye hard drive: Box.net's online storage now directly accessible by multiple Web apps

Wall Street Journal: 1 , 2, 3

Information Week Box.net Opens Online Storage Platform To Web Services

Red Herring Box.net Gets $6M, Awaits Google's Move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.153.246 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- ...so fix it. Get rid of the pricing structure and make it sound more like an article and less like a price list. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article is obviously "so-fix-it"-able, we have no reason to delete it now, right? AfD isn't Cleanup® and obiously there's a big difference between "no sources available" and "no sources presently in the article (but available)". Former is a case for AfD, latter is a matter of cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. Seems to be more than marginally notable and is covered elsewhere. Possible merge material though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:19, 31 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. Core desat 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr. Sauter Ltd.[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was looking for sources for this article a couple of days ago, and couldn't find anything substantial. PirateMink 11:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:16, 30 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G.707[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007, plus numerus other tags Montchav (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Synchronous optical networking. Addhoc (talk) 19:24, 4 February 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. Sandstein (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galeria Kazimierz[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google News search shows this was the subject of numerous secondary stories by the Gazeta Wyborcza [13]. A Polish translator would help with the improvement of this article. --Oakshade (talk) 07:13, 29 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 (non-admin closure). Chetblong^{T C} 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbaron[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need understanding of Japanese to expand the reason for AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was under the impression that television shows on major networks were considered notable by default. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears notable and the category contains many related articles. --Stormbay (talk) 17:39, 30 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garouden[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need more understanding of Japanese to expand the AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been adapted as an anime, a film, and at least two video games, and so meets the notability requirements of WP:BK #3. The article is, however, stubby enough not to mention this -- a translation of the high notes from the Japanese Wikipedia article seems to be in order. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per style guidelines, it should be rewritten to put the novels first, then the derivative works (manga and film) afterwards. I'm not yet clear on whether the anime was based from the novels directly, or from the manga. The film is directly from the novels (it predates the manga). —Quasirandom (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the lead per the above, which means the assertion of notability per WP:BK 3 is now made, which means the deletion rationale is now invalid. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject appears to be as notable as the many others of this type. --Stormbay (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep if Quasirandom is correct, although I'd argue a successful manga series doesn't need all the other parts of a franchise to be notable. --Gwern (contribs) 21:13 30 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 Delete. --VS ^talk 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gasser v Stinson[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. Other than that, I'm neutral Montchav (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V as an unreported case, no citations, possibly WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the US an unreported case is expressly intended by the courts to not be cited and therefore to be unlikely to be notable. I don't know what the Canadian courts' intend with unreported cases, though. --Lquilter (talk) 20:01, 29 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. Mr.Z-man 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva School, Winter Park[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. 425 students is pretty small by school standards Montchav (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:17, 30 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 Keeo. --VS ^talk 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Inter College, Bistupur[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007 - previously PRODed, AFD'd as standard. I remain neutral though Montchav (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any accredited post-secondary education institution is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 07:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I can find on Google, this poorly written article is about an upper secondary school established in 2004. Some mentions found in the Calcutta Telegraph [14] [15]. School's website is defunct. Not much to go on. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I personally believe in deleting this type of article unless there are proper sources, I think you will find that the opinion expressed by Oakshade above will prevail. --Stormbay (talk) 17:50, 30 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 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glee Club (comedy club)[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFDing as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What "protocol" do you speak of? --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see reason to delete this. Valid and generally sourced stub. Being a comedy club chain and shows being broadcast on ITV is a claim to notability. The Birmingham Post wrote extensively about it. --Oakshade (talk) 05:07, 29 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. Sandstein (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007-adding here as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article rambles and doesn't make a point about importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a VERY prestigious research institute of Columbia University. Frequently studies from this institute are reported by major outlets like The New York Times [16], The Washington Post [17], The Guardian [18], BBC News [19] and National Public Radio [20]. Just by being a research institute at Columbia is an assertion of notability. I hope this AfD ends soon because this is one that is embarrassing to Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. In its current form, the article absolutely asserts notability - the tag really should have been removed months ago. The hits listed by Oakshade above do reflect a notable institution, inasmuch as people who work there are repeatedly referred to as experts in their field. Similarly, if you run the name through Google Scholar there are almost three hundred hits, almost all of which are for scholarly articles written by people who are employed there. This article originally was created by a SPA, and subsequently lost most of its content as a copyright vio. Still, while the article needs improvement, the notability of this organization is very clear. Xymmax (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute Keep the article isn't currently in the best state but I intend to work on it and have so tagged it. I think Montchav is doing the same as I am in tackling the backlog as we keep bumping into one another. I ask any admin who may come by to close please hold this through the weekend pending my work on it as I believe I can improve it to an article worth keeping. Travellingcari (talk) 01:20, 2 February 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interbrand[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007-Omnicom merge possible Montchav (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep - it's sourced and obviously notable, one of the most important and prominent branding companies in the world, operates worldwide and does work for a good number of the world's biggest companies. The notability is right here in the lead: "a full-service branding consultancy with 40 offices in 25 countries. Interbrand has an extensive list of clients, with large corporations spanning many industries..." A quick news search shows quite a few stories even in the past few weeks in reliable sources.Wikidemo (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Wikidemo, as there appear to be sufficient sources to document widespread notability. The claim of notability could be more explicit, but the facts presented make the notability fairly clear to me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irlandsfronten[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. 2 previous proddings Montchav (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. The Irlandsfronten appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I duplicate an argument made on the talk page earlier: "Regarding notablity, yes this was a small organization. Nevertheless, I think there are some issues worth noting. One, that an international network of pro-IRA organizations were built up throughout Western Europe in the 1970s. This group maintained links with Sinn Fein and arranged visits there. Nowadays, SV, to which the members of the organization belonged, is a government party in Norway and I don't think it is irrelevant to include information about this group. Moreover it had 10 years of history and a continuation through the United Ireland Committee. --Soman 10:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)"

Moreover, I don't see the source problem. It does have only one source, but on the other hand it is highly authorative. --Soman (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I cannot make any substantial improvements of the article at this point. It is a common problem on articles on orgs that lapsed before the advent of www, that very little material is available online. If one has access to Norwegian print sources, this could be handled though. [21] doesn't any info as such, but indicates that there might be interest material on the feuds between the two pro-Irish republican groups in Norway during the 1970s. --Soman (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — Valid stub agreed, and the topic seems politically interesting. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid stub is exactly what they are, most of them. This one has adequate official sources for notability.DGG (talk) 00:16, 31 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. Wizardman 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kalaimamani[edit]

no claim of notability on the article itself since March , previously propsed4dletion2007 Montchav (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The importance of these awards does not reach an encyclopedic level. They are non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's notable enough for The Hindu and the Times of India then it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Plenty more sources at Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. D.M.N. (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well, a valid stub is exactly what they are, most of them. This one has good sources for notability.DGG (talk) 00:14, 31 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 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Foods, Inc.[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. Previously proposed4deletion Montchav (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company does not appear to have a notability that is encyclopedic. --Stormbay (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they were the subject of a couple of lawsuits but I don't know that is encyclopedic for a company that no longer exists so I lean toward delete. Travellingcari (talk) 02:03, 2 February 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 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Glowinski[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007-just fails WP:BIO, AFDing per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. Kent Glowinski appears non notable at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject "Kent Glowinski" is a notable figure in Federal Canadian Politics, the Canadian Legal System, the media, and the Canadian literature community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordonlamontagne (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this editor added identical keep votes without meaningful rationale to a large number of AfDs. Jfire (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the accomplishments and references add up to notability, even though he has not held elective office. --Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has received media attention for various things over the years, in particular his political activism while he was a teenager. I've started adding references; there's enough there to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bunch of minor media mentions does not add up to notability. Vagary (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if these were trivial mentions, but they are not. Many of the articles are about Glowinski and only him. Furthermore, the articles by Mclintock and by Rowlands are full-length profiles of him. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:05, 31 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 - Keep. --VS ^talk 08:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Légions Noires[edit]

I firmly believe that Les Legions Noires existed and that a small number of bands released records. However, the vast majority of this article constitutes original research as it is unsourced, and is quite possibly unsourceable. I have tried to improve the article, but in the absence of sources I do not see how we can keep it. Obviously fanzines and Internet forums do not count in this instance. Equally, there is no point voting to keep this article if nothing is, or can be done to improve it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has articles in French and Dutch, and the bands dealt with have released material on four apparently noteworthy labels. The subject has inherent notability; that said, the article is in dire need of a good cleanup, and has been for some time. The fanny parts and wild speculation should be circular-filed. Chubbles (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the articles on the French and Dutch sites consist of what I had whittled down this article to before you reverted my changes... the only bits which can be sourced, i.e. an introductory paragraph followed by a list of bands. Regardless, appearance of Wikipedia pages does not establish notability. Releases on noteworthy labels might do, but not if the labels are 'noteworthy' for releasing LLN records. That would be circular logic. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a subject has an article in another language is not in and of itself sufficient to establish notability; however, it is usually an indication that a subject has received international attention and is probably encyclopedic. We have an entire project dedicated to writing articles that have entries in other languages (here). Beyond that, WP:MUSIC notes that bands who release enough material on notable labels may generally be considered notable themselves; it's a good benchmark for a group's popularity. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be prepared to keep the article if all of the unsourced statements are removed, which is what I had edited the article down to - a statement that these individuals exist, that they are French and that they released a small number of records (I believe it is about five across the thirty odd bands said to be involved) on notable named labels. Everything else is unsourced and/or unsourceable and hence cannot be considered encyclopedic. This is in fact what the French and Dutch pages appear to have. I am still in search of reliable sources but they do not appear to exist. There is a further problem incidentally... the text is near identical to the text on this Myspace site: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=282534767. I don't know which came first, the Myspace bio or the Wikipedia entry. The creator of the article has claimed that they have plaigarised him, but we only have his word for that. The Myspace site also has a French translation of the article, though this does not appear to be present in the French Wikipedia article. I am not sure what to make of this or how to proceed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text of this article predates the creation of that myspace page. Chubbles (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll attempt a rewrite, but I am going to remove the unsourced rumoured material. Anyone else out there reading this who wants to help, feel free ;-). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was wasn't going to mention WP:MUSIC as my beef with this article is broadly one of verifiability not notability, but since you mention it... which bit of the guideline do you think qualifies LLN for inclusion (I agree with your stance on notability in general but I'm unconvinced the guideline backs you up on this one). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vastly prefer the current revision, though it still needs some work. I've found a few Terrorizer reviews and a brief historical mention from the black metal retrospective looking at regional scenes. I'll try and add some of it with citation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid article. Catchpole (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think that it is valid that there should be an article for this subject, or you think the article as currently stands is valid? If I remove everything unsourced, we end up with a nearly blank page. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing wrong with stubs. If the subject is notable, then better a stub than nothing. If the only way to improve the page is to strip it down to a stub, then so be it, but that should be the approach: not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per it being a big deal. The LLN is just as big as the so called "black metal mafia" but more so. It was a whole movement. Hackser (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Being a big deal' is POV and needs sourcing. To claim that the LLN was as big as the Norwegian 'Black Mafia' but more so' is ridiculous, as numbers of reliable sources and record releases will demonstrate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:47, 31 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 keep). Considered relisting, but nominator has not cited any valid reasons for deletion. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lochness (song)[edit]

This is just some song off Angel of Retribution, not released as a single nor generating controversy or acclaim. It's apparently Priest's longest song, but how is that notable? Will we have an article about the longest-running song by every band ever? Toss it! Howa0082 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 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.--Kubigula (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Parker[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No sources. Non notable. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SingCal (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article says that this is a French band, formed by the singer from another French band that had several releases. The act at issue released four singles and an album in France. Google appears to confirm.[22] Perhaps needs to be flagged for attention by someone more familiar with French pop music, but it seems verifiable and also seems to meet several parts of the WP:MUSIC test, even if they're a French one hit wonder. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep valid stub. Catchpole (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep : Smerdis of Tlön is right. One of the song recorded by this band, "Tes états d'amérique..." was one of the hits of 1987 in France, peaking at number 10 in French SNEP Singles Charts. The band is also mentioned in the French book Muz hit. tubes, by Elia Habib, p. 96 (ISBN 2-9518832-0-X), which lists all hits in France since 1984, with a long comment about Luna Parker's work. The author, a specialist of French charts, says the band had received a Silver disc for a minimum of 200,000 copies sold of this song. Europe22 (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Europe22's evidence above, I believe it is pretty clear that the WP:MUSIC criteria on national charting has been achieved. SorryGuy Talk 07:12, 2 February 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 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moshcore[edit]

Moshcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article has been nominated for deletion before and the decision was to keep. However, since then not a single reliable source (in two years) has been provided to justify its inclusion as a real genre. This means that at present it constitutes original research. I am thus proposing it for deletion again. If sources are forthcoming, it may be worth keeping it (the term is obviously in use as Google will testify, but then many terms are). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some sources.--Senpaiottolo (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you think citing a Google search constitutes 'some sources'. Have you come across Wikipedia before, or are you trolling? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it gets better. You have posted a link to the results of a search in the Italian Google. For the English Wikipedia. Genius. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Load of OR. By the way, why the heck have you posted an Italian Google Search as a source. You might want to learn more about Wikipedia before you start calling a foreign language google search a source. Damn, forgot to sign there. Anyway, Thanks for reading, Thundermaster^TRUC 10:08, 31 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 Non consensus - no discussion - Keep. --VS ^talk 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProductSifter[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007-once prodded, declined. Adding here as per protocol. I remain neutral to the discussion here Montchav (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Insight Party[edit]

no claim of notability since March 2007. not google's friend Montchav (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't feel that a campus political organization has encyclopedic importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Family & Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jewish Family & Life

Delete self-promotion of NN company by a user with a clear WP:COI Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I really think this one should be Speedy but I was declined. Fails WP:ORG with no significant secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jvibe until sources are found. Addhoc (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a keep, move to "JFL Media". The title sounds like an insurance company. Mandsford (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Very much seems like self-promotion. Also, seems unnotable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:44, 29 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 (non-admin closure). Chetblong^{T C} 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JVibe[edit]

Delete NN niche-market magazine, which has WP:COI issues Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not an encyclopaedic topic. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep 16 000 Google hits makes it slightly notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides multiple reliable sources to establish notability. No apparent Wikipedia policy excludes niche-market magazines. Alansohn (talk) 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been established by the addition of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:40, 29 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 Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Falcon[edit]

Non-notable person known for his "big penis" who achieved some level of exposure because of pranks to him from the Howard Stern Show. There was a profile of him in Rolling Stone but that seems the only secondary coverage he has received. He had numerous bit non-speaking parts in various American and British TV shows and was interviewed briefly in a HBO documentary, but these don't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering, on my behalf, I'm currently writing a screenplay for production and am going to be featured in Details magazine, and about 100 (well, dozens, anyway) magazine articles and TV shows I've already appeared in, you'll end up writing my entry all over again. (rolling eyes) I know it's uncool for the subject to speak up, but I may as well. The fact I'm writing and going to appear in my own major motion feature is probably enough. (laugh) JAF1970 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See the External links section. In addition to the Rolling Stone piece, he has been the subject of an article in the Village Voice and intervied by blogger Byron Crawford. So he has clearly been covered by some other secondary sources. A quick googling reveals 63,000 hits, one of the first of which is The Sun [23]. I don't know if tabloid columns count towards independent coverage, but I would be surprised if there were no other coverage among the 62,999 other google hits. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said no other secondary source coverage, which blogs do no count as (for the record, the first Ghit I get is for the Wikipedia article). However, the subject has provided coverage below so I am withdrawing. Redfarmer (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also appeared in FHM, OUT, Max (the German version of Maxim), and TV shows such as Nicole (the German teen version of Oprah - don't ask), Yanky Panky, Sky News, ProSeiben etc, and a ton of other stuff not listed here. Been on over 200 radio shows, too - if there's a major radio DJ, I've been on it (from Howard Stern to Opie & Anthony to Ginger Lynn, even did a show with Jack Nicholson and Gene Simmons [24] - all not on here. If I were allowed to edit my own Wiki (which I seldom do), you'd see a ton more sourced info. Maybe I should start posting it. JAF1970 (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I did try to find information before I nominated but had a hard time. I'll withdraw for now. If you want to send your sources I will help revise the article to get it up to standard. Redfarmer (talk) 16:32, 28 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 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Grant (surgeon)[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=rg424&DepAffil=Surgery. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with numerous bios of run of the mill specialists. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another Columbia specialist article with no independent sources. DarkAudit (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Medline finds 12 papers for "RT Grant" which seem to be his; there might be others under "R Grant", but it's too common a name to search. Google Scholar finds 42 and 27 citations for two papers he coauthored, but nothing else has been cited above 20 times. He's only on the editorial board of one journal. He is the editor of a book with McGraw-Hill which is currently in press. I believe that this just falls below the threshold for WP:PROF at the present, especially given the concerns regarding the agenda of the article's creator. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This Google scholar search should pick up his papers. The first six seem to be the right R. Grant, but in each case he is the second last of many authors, and in the other he's third last. Even if the number of citations would be enough to make him notable if he was the first author listed (which is borderline), his position on the lists of authors implies that he only made a minor contribution. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a clinician primarily, not a research--thats why he's Adjunct faculty. Her has to be judged on his notability as that. But he's adjuct faculty oat both of the leading NYC medical schools, and he's Chief of Plastic Surgery in the main teaching hospital for one of them, NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. that makes him one of the two top academic plastic surgeons in NYC. If someone has another med school or two in mind, he's still one of the top 3 or so plastic surgeons in NYC. DGG (talk) 00:21, 31 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 Userfying per author's request to continue working. The article can now be found by clicking here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Riazanov[edit]

This was nominated for speedy deletion per CSD A7. I saw it and fixed the attempt at an {{underconstruction}} tag since I thought it was a borderline speedy candidate. The original speedy-tagger came back and removed the tag and replaced it with {{notability}}. That being said, no Google results come up for his full name (nor does anything relevant sounding come up for the first and last names). The references also don't seem to be valid. I smell a hoax. Can someone with greater knowledge of Russian history comment? IronGargoyle (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had about this person at университетский Санкт-Петербург ( University of Saint-Petersburg ) during my first year. This person is controversial in Russia. There is no doubt that this person has lived, but whether the background is correct, is unsure. Some link this person to Lenin and Stalin, but personaly I think that is to unsure to be stated. I have send a mail/message to this user: "Myhren" and recived an answer. He would like to extend the article, but was a new user on Wikipedia, as far as he told. He says that he would finish the article later this week, with more references. Maybe we should give the new user some time, but keep looking with it.

Very litle about this person has posted on the web, cause he is not that famous. Maybe in some Russian sircle. I could see if I can dig up my old notes from the university, but would not be able to lay something the next days. Maybe Thursday. Sergey Yevgenyevich (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion-page at Vladimir Riazanov.. Myhren (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am the original speedy-tagger of this article. I tagged it so mainly because of the wording, especially that of the last sentence, He was executed in 1915 when the government discovered him, which to me smelled like a hoax. I removed my own tag on follow up because of subsequent edits that established a borderline notability assertion for this person, which made the article still deleteable if reliable sources cannot be found, but not speedable. Additionally, the use of the word discovered is more likely due to the author's lack of fluency in English. This said, I realize that, for a Russian man, one would expect reliable sources to be mostly in Russian. Unfamiliar as I am with the Cyrillic alphabet (I can read some, but not all the characters), transliteration by me of the subject's name into Cyrillic could be tricky and/or inaccurate, and me being unable to find sources on the Web about the subject could lead to a false negative. Sergey Yevgenyevich is probably the best hope of survival for this article right now. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no assertion of why he is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 5 February 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 all, I'll leave the job of the actual merging these contents to another editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concealer (song)[edit]

Also included in this nomination:

I'm a fan of Thursday, but, let's face it, not every one of their songs is notable, and these certainly are not. None of them were singles, the vast majority are never played at live shows, and they don't have secondary sources to establish their notability. Paris in Flames even seems to have a spam link in it. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All all are NN album tracks. Doc Strange (talk) 16:34, 17 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, Redfarmer (talk) 10:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Songs need some sort of notability like being released as a single to merit an article. --Dhartung | Talk 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to the album each song originated from as plausible search terms. This is Not to be interpreted as a keep. -- saberwyn 12:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:59, 24 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, Redfarmer (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all. As per saberwyn, don't interpret this as a keep! User:Dorftrottel 13:55, January 29, 2008
Merge and redirect all The information can be kept on the pages for the albums. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:22 2008 February 3 (UTC)

Merge and redirect Per above. Lawrence § t/e 14:22, 4 February 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 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordine Assami[edit]

Non-notable Alexf⁴² 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Alexf⁴² 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep after recent revelations/changes. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a hoax - according to this he (or at least, a player with this name) has played in the Championnat National, however that doesn't seem to be a fully professional league - can anyone confirm........? ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah - it looks like the player is real, but none of the details in the page are (see also Matthieu Bochu). I think the French third division passes notability. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've removed the hoax material. This guy's notable. As well as the reference I've given in the article, there's this --Dweller (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assami has played in the French Championnat National (3rd level) for Cannes in the 04-05 season and for Istres in the 07-08 season ([25]). Does anyone know if the Championnat National is a fully professional league? Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after notability was asserted. -- Alexf⁴² 17:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sub-stub class right now, but it's enough to assert notability after removal of hoax material. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snowball keep. I've not seen the previous versions, but this is now definitely notable. Peanut4 (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, speedy close it. Everyking (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet current notability criteria. King of the North East 20:23, 31 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. Core desat 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Axioms in school mathematics[edit]

My original {{PROD}} reason: Arbitrary list. Are we going to include the group (mathematics) axioms because they are studied in school? DePRODed by an anon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary list with subjective membership criteria. Not useful for navigation. Axioms listed are already included (and more correctly) in articles such as Euclidean geometry. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Gandalf61 - axioms are already covered in Axiom and links from there, there is no point to an article listing a subset, and no way to tell what different schools might cover. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Truths so universal, you don't need to cite to a lousy math book? Some of these are silly anyway-- "all right angles are congruent". Reckon that's why one 90° angle has the same degrees as the next 90° angle. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not silly to say "all right angles are congruent". But the context needs to be there in order to understand why not. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have an article titled axiom. This is a poorly written article that contains nothing that should be in a separate article from that other one. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Paul August ☎ 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Per Michael.[reply]
Delete. "school mathematics" Makes no hint as to which school we're talking about, and without any source to provide the demarcation between "school mathematics" and other mathematics we have an original research problem. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:38, 29 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 article, with a redirect in place per below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karsus[edit]

Previously deleted for claims of blatant copyright violation, the article was nominated for deletion review where the copyvio issue remained unresolved. The article was recreated in shortened form during the nomination, so while copyvio issues might have been resolved, there are notability and sourcing problems remaining, so community discussion seems in order. My editorial opinion is delete unless rewritten and sourced from independent sources/speedy delete if copyvio issues can be substantiated. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just noticed that this was essentially a partial restoration of the prior content. I stubbed the article, check the edit history and the WP mirror for the longer versions. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a very minor character who really does not need their own page. Web Warlock (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of Forgotten Realms deities#Others, where he already appears. BOZ (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- don't think there is mergeable content in the current article. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then just redirect - there's no need for a delete. BOZ (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes if the history contains no usable content other than an alleged copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is anybody actualy trying to determine that, or has this process just stalled out? :) If someone rewrote it from scratch would that help any, or is it just going to be deleted and/or redirected no matter what? BOZ (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe redirect per Webwarlock and BOZ. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge to some list of characters from FR if he is really noteworthy or delete if there is really no content on him that wouldn't be copied straight from a published product. i myself have never heard of this character in 24+ years of playing D&D nor 30+ years of knowing of D&D. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable character. I moved the description to the List. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are good here for a delete now. Web Warlock (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a redirect to List of Forgotten Realms deities#Others, where he already appears. :) BOZ (talk) 19:25, 5 February 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 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werkplaats Typografie[edit]

Apparently non-notable typography course at institute (ArtEZ Institute of the Arts) that has no article.

Contested prod by anon: "The Werkplaats Typografie is a very notable school in the field of Graphic Design. Students from all over the world attend this Workshop, and a lot of it's ex-students are influential contemporary graphic designers. The Werkplaats (Workshop) has been co-founded by the influential modernist Graphic designer Karel Martens. Ex-students include (and this is a very incomplete list); Stuart Bailey / Dexter Sinister Joris Maltha & Daniel_Gross / Catalogtree Hans Gremmen / Hans Gremmen

I do agree that this article has to be expanded, but deletion would be a loss and plain stupid."

Espresso Addict (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll include what I had given as a rebuttal to the prod removal on the talk page of this article. It is entirely true. Taken from the web site itself:

The Werkplaats Typografie (WT) is part of ArtEZ Institute of the Arts. WT is a two-year masters programme centred on practical assignments and self-initiated projects. It also serves as a meeting place for graphic designers with regard to research and dialogue.

The WT is supervised by Karel Martens and Armand Mevis. Further guidance is given on a regular basis by Paul Elliman and Maxine Kopsa. Anniek Brattinga and Liesbeth Doornbosch are in charge of co-ordination.

Visiting lecturers are regularly invited to provide individual tutoring and/or for presentations. Reviews of work, critiques and project participation are informal in character. Participants work in a professionally equipped studio accessible 24 hours a day. The WT is open to a maximum number of twelve graphic designers who would like to deepen their knowledge and skills.

Participation depends entirely upon proven ability.

The web site for WT establishes it as a program at the school itself, and a small one. There has to be a lot more done in this article to show why this study program is notable. The attitude seems to be "if you're a graphic designer you'll know what it is"... Well, most people who use Wikipedia aren't graphic designers. If it's only notable to them, it's not notable. Again this article does nothing to justify what is important about this study program, and at the minimum that needs to be expanded. -- Atama ^chat 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no assertion of notability in the article. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 5 February 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. Core desat 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Knight[edit]

Non-notable web browser. Fails WP:CORP. Also, violation of WP:COI as the article was written by the person who created the browser. Reads like an advert. Denied speedy because admin felt it could be fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that Surf Knight is a notable web browser, it was featured in various Internet blogs such as Mom's Daily, and Chilli Technology. I feel very strongly that Surf Knight will become a major player in the Kids' Web browser market. I do realize that it has not appeared in a major publication yet. But, again, I feel that the article should not be deleted just because, the dev team do not have enough money to hire a PR rep. Additionally, Wikipedia does serve articles on commercial web browsers such as Opera and non-profit web browsers such as Firefox. Browsers that use similar technology also have recieved covering, examples are: AOL Explorer, Altimit OS Web Browser, Avant Browser, Bento Browser (Built into Winamp), Enigma, Maxthon, Slim Browser, NeoPlanet, NetCaptor, many other Internet Explorer shells, Yahoo! Browser (or partnership browsers eg. "AT&T Yahoo! Browser"; "Verizon Yahoo! Browser"; "BT Yahoo! Browser" etc.) iRider, Smart Bro, and UltraBrowser. Furthermore, I disagree that the article reads like an advert. It plainly introduced what Surf Knight is and lists the features. MetinKandiyoti (talk) 6:59, 23 January 2008
- You should note that, as I explained to you on your talk page, other articles exist is not a valid arguement for inclusion. With that said, all of those articles are notable due to secondary sources per WP:CORP. Being mentioned in blogs, unfortunately, does not qualify for notability. Also, there's still the lingering issue of conflict of interest. Redfarmer (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There can not be a conflict of interest, since the web site, surfknight.com does not have any ads, or other kinds of revenue generating tools, and the software is distributed free of charge, which does not include any spyware, or adware. MetinKandiyoti (talk) 7:24 (EST), 23 January 2008
    - The conflict of interest is that you, who created the web browser according to the article, also wrote the article. See WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Redfarmer, I understand your concern in keeping Wikipedia a valuable source for all of the Internet users. I, for one, am an active user of Wikipedia, and appreciate the change it has brought to the way we view information. At Surf Knight, we are trying to achieve a similar goal. There are many kids aged between 5 to 11 who are not allowed to use Internet, because of their parents' concern about explicit content. Our mission is to empower kids with the rich content of Internet, while protecting them from malicious content. Although, we make this software free to download, it is still a challenge to reach to the people who will benefit the use of this software. I do realize that I do not have a strong argument here, but I ask if you have it your (and the other Wikipedia admin's) heart to let this article be published.

Thanks for your consideration talk) 11:25 PM (EST), 23 January 2008

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:COI per main editors comment "I feel very strongly that Surf Knight will become a major player in the Kids' Web browser market." Jeepday (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wait until it actually does become a major player to allow an article. Maxa megalon 2000 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we be more constructive than just throwing delete tags. How about we expand this article to cover other Web Browsers designed for kids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MetinKandiyoti (talk • contribs) talk) 8:22 AM (EST), 24 January 2008
- That's not the issue here. If you want to create another article on kids' web browsers (and can index it with secondary sources), you're more than welcome to. The issue here is that the article is not notable enough to stand on its own nobility. Redfarmer (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is coverage in blogs, but these do not count as reliable sources to establish notability. The only other search results are download links. As such, there are no reliable sources to establish notability. If this web browser does catch on, the article can be reacted then. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it has potential to become a better article, and it is as notable as any other browser. STYROFOAM☭1994_TALK 00:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what? Redfarmer (talk) 13:26, 28 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, Redfarmer (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "It's gonna be famous some day" (with its more elegant variants, such as "It has great potential") is the lamest defense in the book for a non-notable band, website, program, etc. If and when it becomes notable, then and only then does it get an article. (And WP:COI is not just for commercial enterprises; it applies to charities, schools, ideologies, etc.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:50, 28 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actors who died in their 20s[edit]

This should be a category, if anything. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been trying to get across below that the category, which was created by the same user at virtually the same time, is in WP:CfD right now. Even if, on the long shot it was kept, there is no information here that is not already in the category. Categorize should not be a choice right now. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic cross categorization. Probably shouldn't even be a category. All these actors had in common was they died in their 20s, which is not inherently notable. Redfarmer (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by coverage in reliable sources. Category alone is --Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)not sufficient; article allows sources. Meanest Streets (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The one source is a border copyvio of a Yahoo news article that was produced in memoriam of Heath Ledger reminding readers of other actors who died in their 20s. Such articles pop up all the time after events like this. They don't establish notability. Redfarmer (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a case of WP:LIST. In this case, the category is a bit more appropriate. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the category is in WP:CfD right now. They have precedent against such categories. Redfarmer (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mixed feelings about this one. There actually is a category called "Actors Who Died In their 20s"; yet both list and category sound like something you'd find on Jeopardy or Pyramid. On the other hand, I guess this probably started as something like "People who died young" before the more technical minded began asking for a definition of young. Thus, we have a square hole for persons who died on or after their 20th birthday, but no later than one day before their 30th birthday. Mandsford (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the comment above, the category, which was created by the same editor, is in WP:CfD and it's got a consensus of delete right now due to WP:OCAT. That's not necessarily a reason to delete the article because I think they should be considered seperately but it does give you something to think about. Redfarmer (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the fact that apparently the decision is being made that it's not suitable for a category, so I guess it has to be kept as an article. I personally think it should be the other way around, but what do I know. 23skidoo (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you feel this should be kept just because the category is being deleted? As I said above, they should be considered totally separately; I only brought up the issue of deletion of the category to point out that converting to category or pointing to the existence of the category would not be a valid argument right now. This article is borderline copyvio and a violation of WP:NOT#DIR for being a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. WP:LOSE. Redfarmer (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of loosely related people, only that they died young doesn't deserve a category or a list. We already have List of people who died before the age of 30, which is more than enough. Secret ^account 04:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to category, and yes, similar categories exist. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 04:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, similar categories exist, but WP:CfD is working to stamp them out. They have a precedent of deleting such categories and are considering salting this one since it's been recreated several times. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Redfarmer (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't convert to a category. Infact, the category is being CFD'd as I type. Lugnuts (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– This list is particularly useful to anyone researching celebrity culture and early fame. The category of the same name will probably be deleted, and without this list (which, sad to say could be easily expanded quite a bit), this information will be lost. J. Van Meter (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness is completely irrelevant here. The issue is whether this information is appropriate for a list form or not. So far, all arguements I've heard for the list are in the form of WP:USEFUL or WP:LOSE. These are both irrelevant. Redfarmer (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is inappropriate for a category, as has been decided 3 times before (and a fourth time as we speak, most likely). If this information is worthwhile keeping, then it needs to be kept in a list form, not a category. --Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If anything, this should be a category. If it's kept as an entry instead, the name should be changed to reflect that it's apparently a list of U.S. actors, and apparently movie/TV actors, not stage actors. In other words, it's just a weird little list. --Markzero (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of fact, on further review this entry seems to have been simply a regurgitation of a list of ten dead Hollywood actors, as cited in one of the sources. Heath Ledger wasn't even listed until I just added him now. I really don't see how this is not tailor-made for a category, as each actors' entries should have sufficient details about their deaths already. So convert it or just kill it. --Markzero (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Guys, I'm getting horse from repeating this: it already is a category and it's in CfD with a current consensus of delete due to WP:OCAT. Please, consider the list in its own right at this point. It's probably not going to be a category for much longer. Redfarmer (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep and expand if kept. this is at the moment a trivial list of 10 actors, derived from a single pair of articles, published in response to the death of Heath ledger. should be done right or not at all. DGG (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We really don't need this. Thin boy 00 @205, i.e. 03:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep I find this category quite informative, as I recall it existed once but had been deleted. It's resotration is a good thing. Is it, perhaps, some sort of stigma regarding death that makes you all feel this category is not needed? I think it's quite informative. And Thinboy00, why don't "we" need this?? 24.149.185.189 (talk)
- It is useful is not a valid argument for inclusion. Redfarmer (talk) 21:31, 26 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, Redfarmer (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Pointless list.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds that the category is about to be deleted. I don't support list articles of this nature. I feel categories are more appropriate. Obviously, however, Wikipedia is effectively banning such categories, so therefore you have to have one or the other. 23skidoo (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have to have? User:Dorftrottel 02:27, January 30, 2008
convert to category per nom. RogueNinja_talk 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decade of age upon death is a bit arbitrary for an article don't you think? Besides, at least at once time, it was possible to directly SQL query IMDB for information like this. (Something like, "SELECT * FROM actors WHERE dateOfDeath - dateOfBirth < 30 && dateOfDeath - dateOfBirth >= 20")...databases are much nicer for this type of information than are wikis. -Verdatum (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Completely arbitrary. Fails WP:NOT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's next? Actors who died in their 30s, Farmers who died in their 20s, Clerks who died in ther 40s - No, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If this is closed as no consensus, I'm gonna re-nominate it and demonstrate that this fails vital Wikipedia policies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first, I was going to suggest (as a replacement) an ordered list of celebrities, by age at death; which would eliminate one arbitrary point (the 20's as an age limit). But, even then, it fails WP:NOT. I think the only way this article remains unarbitrary is as an ordered list of all ages at death (not just actors); and, I'm not about to suggest that as an article. If someone wants to set up Wikideathia to keep track of that, more power to them. Until then, WP:USEFUL is not a valid reason for keeping; and, the premise that the deletion of the category somehow should give this article a free pass is an equally unsound argumant. Neier (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify or delete. User:Dorftrottel 13:57, January 29, 2008
Categorify and delete.--Rtphokie (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It already WAS a category as has been pointed out above and was deleted in WP:CfD. Categorify should not be an option right now, period, as to categorify would be to recreate deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and replace with a category. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You can't just say "speedy delete" without specifying which criteria in WP:CSD it falls under. As far as I can tell, it does not fall under any of the current criteria. -Verdatum (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brings together related topics and is useful for navigating the subject, which is a valid argument per WP:USEFUL:
There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

It helps to actually read policies, guidelines and essays before invoking them. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seriously doubt this policy applies in this case. This "article" is nothing that can't be substituted by a category. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:CLS, categories and lists aren't in competition. "You can replace this with a category" is not a valid argument for deletion. Torc2 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This "article" is nothing more than a pseudo-category. It should be deleted for that alone. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know what I just said or what in WP:CLS was unclear about the matter. "Better as a category" is a non-argument. Torc2 (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You pointing to generic wiki policy aside, do you have any actual reason as to why this "article" that consists of nothing more than a few links to dead actors, should be kept? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I never said to keep the article. I was just pointing out the flaws in using that argument to delete the article. If we're going to delete it, let's delete it for legitimate reasons. "Better as a category" is not a legitimate reason. Torc2 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yeah yeah, whatever. There's nothing flawed in deleting an article that serves no purpose and could be substituted by a category. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. In this line numerous articles can be created like Actors who died in their 30s, Actors who died in their 40s, Actors who died in their 50s, Actors who died in their 60s, Swimmers who died in their 30s, Footballers who died in their 30s etc etc. Unencyclopedic and pointless. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information can already be found on the page List_of_famous_people_who_died_young, also known by other names such as List of people who died before the age of 30, mentioned by Secret. I believe this page is redundant. MrMelonhead (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And perhaps make a Cat Hereitisthen (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very interesting and timely. Searches for just this thing were all over the internet after Heath Ledger died. It is worthy of wikipedia. Georgiamonet (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you think the article is useful or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 10:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - i am really astounded by the number of people who say "categorify" or similar after Redfarmer and others have pointed out that that is not an option because CFD has deleted the category. Are they not reading? Do they think this is a vote? What on earth is going on here? --Lquilter (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - what's going on? A lack of consensus, that's whats going. Those who are recomending categorization probably missed the CFDdiscussion and would have recommended keeping that category. Seems like that discussion should be reopened based on the discussion here.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see a no consensus here but rather a lot of people arguing WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:LOSE. The only editor who has voted keep and has had a well thought out reason is Phil Bridger (mind you, a lot of the deletes and categorifys have been just as bad). And no, the CfD discussion should not be reopened. They've had that discussion three times before and reached the same conclusion each time. I posted a link here when it first started but, like Lquilter said, it's like people are voting entirely based on the nom and not reading the rest of the discussion. Redfarmer (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
huh? Hang on, you're the one who said you were going hoarse on this very page from all the deleters talking of making it a category (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did. I repeated it so many times above the only reason I can see someone would continue to say categorize is they haven't read the entire discussion. I personally think the article should be deleted. Doesn't mean I'm 100% absolutely right but there have been so many absolutely horrid arguments for keep in this discussion I don't feel they should even be considered. There have been some equally bad votes for delete but there have also been some good reasons and, if we are going solely by good logical responses (as I understand AfD is supposed to) then we should not look at arguments not based on policy and see what the consensus is by that. Redfarmer (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - oh, and delete, by the way, because having read the CFD discussion and the AFD discussion, i have yet to see a solid argument for keeping this particular cross-section of information, and i can't construct one for myself. It's trivia. If people are interested in the topic of "people dying young" then they can write an article about the sociological phenomena or contribute to articles on suicide or so on, but this is trivia, and ghoulish trivia at that. delete, delete, delete. --Lquilter (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not anti-trivia. It's just anti-trivia section Torc2 (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this shows the article definition was considered notable in its own right buy a major newspaper. Yes, it could be considered some sort of subset in a venn-diagram sort of way of List_of_famous_people_who_died_young. Actually I wouldn't have a problem with it being merged there either.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a word for word rerun of the same article the user used to create this page to begin with. That does not establish notability but rather that a newspaper wanted to capitalize on sentiment surrounding Heath Ledger's death. Redfarmer (talk) 09:58, 5 February 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. Core desat 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spectraliquid[edit]

Non notable electronic music label. Article fails WP:V Sting au Buzz Me... 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:V and WP:N. No third-party reliable sources, and I tried looking for them and didn't find much.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable label Lugnuts (talk) 15:52, 28 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. Core desat 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad pie[edit]

Non-notable regional neologism JD554 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:WINAD, WP:N. This should be easy.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sting au Buzz Me... 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's not even in Urban Dictionary. Looks almost like a WP:NFT article.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably WP:SNOW delete this. Could have been prodded as a totally uncontroversial deletion per its failure of multiple policies.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - h i s says it all. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW sounds about right to me. -Verdatum (talk) 19:51, 28 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. Core desat 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meenakshi Sundaram[edit]

Not a notable person per WP:BIO. The only link goes to a free webpage which is a biography of completely different person with the same name. Dekisugi (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Dekisugi (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources: the link goes to someone who died in 1980. That suggests there aren't any genuine sources available. Google shows several people with this name but none that I can identify with the subject. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N Andante1980 (talk) 15:48, 28 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. Trusilver 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slaad[edit]

Non-notable stock character from Dungeons & Dragons. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this "Product Identity". This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF, so there is no benefit from keeping any of this vacuous fancruft. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment again, Gavin hasn't read the article properly. It's not a stock character; it's a fantasy race. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wizards of the Coast, they are creatures[26], but since the term stock charcter also covers stock creatures, it makes little difference.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? "creature" is more-or-less synonymous with "fantasy race". I agree that a stock creature would be a stock character; but this isn't a stock creature but rather a race of creatures. That's not the same thing. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note my comment here: [27]. BOZ (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a specific member, of a specific sub-race of Slaad, for a different aspect of the game. You are not showing that you have done much research really at all. Web Warlock (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its one of 2,600 stock characters from the D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Web Warlock (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gavin's poorly researched nomination notwithstanding, there is no third-party coverage here, so the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please recall the question is if the topic fails WP:N, not a article. (At the moment the article passing WP:N by a wide margin, but probably not when you wrote this... Hobit (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gavin, you really should know something about the article and its sources before leaping in and trying to delete something. Perhaps you should focus your time on articles that you have an understanding of the material they're about? Plus, you know, it might help if you discuss things and ask specific questions or suggest ways to improve an article rather than just slapping on your usual stock of inappropriate templates. That out of the way, there are sources not published by TSR/WotC that talk about or reference the Slaadi. The deletion nomination is flawed, and its only applicable complaint can be solved by a few added references. Give me a few days and I should be able to have the time to add some.Shemeska (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The third party Tome of Horrors from Necromancer games is another slaadi reference. And a slaad and a slaad associated artifact (which the plot revolves around) appear in "Downer: Volume 1 - Wandering Monster" and "Downer: Volume 2 - Fools Errand" by Kyle Stanley Hunter, neither of which were published by TSR/WotC. If someone has a moment to add any of those as references, please feel free.Shemeska (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done my research, and there are no reliable secondary sources for this stock character. I think you may be under the mistaken assumption that a mention on a fansite or a passing reference in a third party publication is a reliable secondary source, when in fact it is nothing of the kind. Evidence that this character has notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game) needs to be shown by "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". As this article is composed of in universe plot summary, sources that support the in universe content do not support your assertion of notabilty.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You have not done any research and I question whether you actually know the meaning of the word. Had you done research you would have found ther third party publications, the entries in various magazines OR maybe, if you were very clever, seen the articles relating these creatures to old superstions of toads that swallow gemstones. But you didn't so obviously you didn't actually research anything. Web Warlock (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep mostly because the nominator is seriously out of order here. The nomination makes errors of fact: Slaad is not a "character", stock or not. This shows that the nominator has not bothered to read the article in question (which is a pattern that Gavin Collins has frequently demonstrated before in his numerous assembly-line tags and AfD nominations), or has read without understanding. Following the misstatement is little more than a strung-together list of acronyms, taken almost verbatim from Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, where it is shown as an example of what not to do. I'd like to remind everyone involved that the nominator is known for gaming the system to make a point, as his record will bear out. Few of his machine-gun AfD nominations have stuck; they only serve to make the Wikipedia experience frantic and miserable for a lot of bona-fide editors. Freederick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the article itself, it is well written, lists for its references printed publications not only by the game originator, and has massive Ghits, not only in the context of the originating publication. It satisfies the notability for fiction guidelines; as for the other acronyms listed by the nom, (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL, etc.) I won't bother addressing them as they are clearly not germane to the matter in question. I would also like to point out that it falls to the nominator to substantiate why the acronyms quoted are relevant, rather than just listing them. I could list two dozen random acronyms here, then sit back and wait for other disputants to answer the accusations. Freederick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs a couple of references, maybe a little bit of editing, but that is it. The nominator clearly has no real intrest in this article or the subject matter and is only looking to increase the number of deletions he can aquire. Thus I am also calling this a Bad Faith nomination. Web Warlock (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all previous Keep votes. BOZ (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for absence of reliable sources to provide an out-of-universe perspective, lack of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:EEMIV. Lack of real-world notability. Yeah, the people who play D&D might say it's notable, but to other people, it's a character in a game. It is not worthy of it's own article.Undeath (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's notable among a real-world subculture, then it's notable. Period. There are many sections of Wikipedia that are of interest only to specialists. You've fallen prey to a variant of a fallacy known as argumentum ad populum, except you don't present any actual evidence that "other people" believe as you say they do. If your imaginary friends would like to vote on this talk page, they can speak for themselves. Until they do, I'm calling your argument Appeal to Hallucination. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even so, it takes multiple independent sources to show that it's notable within that subculture, and the article doesn't have those. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has four independent sources. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which four? Remember that Yamara was first published in Dragon, so it's not independent. Can you provide any way to show that the print refs aren't just trivial mentions? Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I edited the article to show the monster's real-world cultural impact. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While well-intentioned, the material you've added is not cited to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources still do not assert notability. They do not cite third party sources.Undeath (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tome of Horrors, the Downer novel, and the two webcomics I cited are all third-party sources. You don't have to lie to make friends. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I added the Downer and Yamara print collections to the bibliography. These are third-party sources, people. -- Poisonink (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment a strip first published in TSR/WotC's Dragon can't be considered independent; and the Downer link is broken. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you cite that "Slaad has become a byword" for similar creatures? You are making a generalization based on its use in Yamara and Shadowgirls -- but where has some sort of third-party source articulated a connection (rather than a coincidence) between the two? If the creators of those comics, for example, had published somewhere that they drew inspiration from the D&D term, that would cut it -- but simply pointing toward primary sources is unsufficient. Additionally, calling "a race of monsters similar to" Lovecraft's -- who says their similar? Your impression of any similarity is original research; it needs a third-party citation articulating a similarity (whether deliberate or otherwise). Ditto the description of the Downer material being about "Slaad-like" creatures -- was this a deliberate choice? A coincidence? Who thinks their similar? This sort of synthesis needs a substantiating source. lastly: correct, one does not need "to lie to make friends," but editors need to assume good faith -- as I've done with your edits -- and maintain a civil tone when editing, which your above comment does not do. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You make some good points, EEMIV, and I've edited the article accordingly. None of your points change the fact that the third-party sources exist, however, which fatally undermines the whole argument for deletion. Note that I didn't say "slaad-like" creatures; I said "slaad-created" - the reference to slaadi is specific in the book, not surmised by me. Because I love you, I'll assume good faith, but read an article more carefully next time before critiquing it, if you would be so kind. Percy, the link works for me, and Yamara remains a 3rd-party source published by a company not associated with TSR, Inc. or Wizards of the Coast, one of four that I've mentioned. Its original appearance is immaterial, as the fact that Steve Jackson Games picked it up shows that it has influence beyond its parent company. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I misread it. However, the "sources," again, are primary sources -- can you provide a secondary source that asserts that "slaad"'s use in other media is based on the D&D use? Even if you can, I count six sentences that connect this fictional material to the real world -- this is not sufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - For crissake, four independent sources (five, if you count Paizo Publishing, which you should) is a more solid foundation than many unquestioned Wikipedia articles have (for example, Nelle Wilson Reagan only has three). You're being unreasonable. How many sentences would meet your arbitrary threshold? Seven? Eight? One hundred? Give me an estimate so that I can stop darkly suspecting you'll never be satisfied. Pop culture is Wikipedia's strength, and trying to deny that is counter-productive and silly. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Added yet another 3rd party source, the Hacklopedia of Beasts Volume VII. Can we consider the "not notable" canard thoroughly debunked yet? -- Poisonink (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't Be Stronger Keep. If this encyclopedia wants to cover D&D at all, this article needs to stay. Slaad are perhaps the single most important of the many monsters actually invented by the D&D game (as opposed to borrowed from mythology), and has appeared in hundreds of books since then. Further, the nominator shows (as he did with the Death Knight AfD) that he has absolutely no capacity to judge whether an article is important to the topic of roleplaying, because he has no knowledge or experience with roleplaying at all (what the heck is a "stock character" with regards to roleplaying??). However, since only references seem to matter, here (paragraphs 5 and 6) is a discussion on the slaad and its artistic development over the course of the game's life from GameSpy.com (a website that is not even a roleplaying game site). We also can include more reference to how it was created in the pages of White Dwarf's Fiend Factory by scifi author Charles Stross, though that is complicated by the fact that Stross chooses not to discuss it anymore, on account of not holding the copyrights. I'll keep looking for more, though I suspect many are print rather than online. Until then, I suggest everyone who wants to keep this article add an "Appearance in other media" entry, to make it more clear that the slaad has grown beyond its original use as just another monster. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the material from Gamespy (which I can't access) offers material for an encyclopedic treatment and is integrated with the article, if the recently added "cultural impact" material is cited to secondary sources rather than the comics/books themselves, then that would probably be sufficient to retain the content, either in this article or some sort of D&D List of creatures. The plot summary, too, needs to be substantially reduced. --EEMIV (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I added more on the slaad's inspiration from a Charles Stross interview, added some context with the author's other writings, and I added a section on slaadi in other media. Are you satisfied yet? The question of how much "real world" content is included in the article is separate from the article's notability, of course, which has by now been thoroughly established. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hastily adding material that isn't properly sourced doesn't help the article. A weblog is not a reliable source, although it's nice to see a quote (I suppose a copy-and-paste of a block quote is better than nothing) about development. Has anyone besides the creator cared to comment on the creatures? Gamespy might have (Ig8887? Can anyone else access the article?) Is there any critical response? After review WP:RS, please see WP:WAF. Additionally, there still are no secondary sources for the material you added earlier. This AfD is only a few hours old; if you think the material is out there, please add it according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --EEMIV (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, for some reason, creating a link to the article doesn't work right. But you can copy-and-paste the URL, which is "http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/540/540509p2.html" to get to it. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, now that automatically-generated link right above this works. Weird. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I added yet another independent third-party source, the first Order of the Stick print collection. Your criticisms are well-taken, EEMIV, but the rationale for deletion was non-notability, and with eight or so independent sources (not counting the blog), even the biggest haters should be mollified. -- Poisonink (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if you can substantiate by citing secondary sources rather than primary sources (i.e. cite a review of the comic rather than the comic, cite a critique of the sourcebook rather than the sourcebook), then your claims of notability will be substantiated. See above my comments to Ig8887 about what I'd accept to keeping the content, either in this article or for merging into a List of... --EEMIV (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You misunderstand; the OOTS comic itself is a secondary source, because it is a comic whose purpose is to comment and criticise on the D&D game. The creature's appearance in D&D is the primary source; the author of OOTS comments on the slaad's position in the D&D mythology through his comic and commentary is the secondary source. As far as anything else, several people seem to be working as fast as they can to upgrade this article, so maybe you should reserve judgment until we get it written. As you said, it's only a few hours old, the final decision won't be in the next ten minutes. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed with Ig8887. The primary source is the original Fiend Folio, or the article in White Dwarf magazine (not a TSR or WotC source, by the way) that preceded it. When other companies add or parody (as in Yamara, Order of the Stick, and HackMaster) slaadi, they are commenting on the monster, either on its role in the game (OotS), the appearance of the monster (Yamara), or the game in general (HackMaster), or simply affirming their love of the classic monster in a way they are certainly not required to (The Tome of Horrors, the Demon Stone video game, and HackMaster). This is 2nd-party commentary, and cannot reasonably be construed as anything else. The cultural impact within this specific subculture cannot honestly be denied. -- Poisonink (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with Ig8887, a comic cannot provide evidence that this character has notability outside of its primary source (a role playing game). As stated above, the source needs to show "real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot". I think that when it comes to the definition or reliable secondary souces, fans of role-playing games may have a tenuous grasp on the difference between the real-world and the fantasy world of comics, game guides and fansites. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for generalizing all roleplayers as people who have a tenuous grasp on the difference between reality and fantasy. I appreciate it, as I'm sure the millions of other people who engage in the hobby do too. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think Gavin means to say he disagrees with Ig8887. Regardless of his uncivil generalization of all RPG fans, comics and roleplaying games are the primary means of livelihood for many people. Expecting a RPG monster to have impact beyond the realm of fiction, commentary on fiction, or RPG supplements (i.e., a slaad saved the life of a small child in Virginia) is a ridiculous burden to impose, and not something required of any other articles on fictional characters on Wikipedia. The article in question does offer detail on the work's development and impact, which suggests that Gavin either has not bothered to read the article in question since it was edited or that he's deliberately ignoring these aspects. -- Poisonink (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly; if Doonesbury can be seen as a secondary source on real-world events, then a comic whose primary mode is to comment and criticize on the world of D&D is a secondary source on the fictional world of RPGs. The comic is not part of the D&D game, cannot be used in playing the D&D game, and exists solely to make comment on things within the D&D game. It does so with parody, a legitimate form of commentary. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "vacuous fancruft" shows that the nomination is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Adequate sourcing and notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I do like it; there are some great lines in the plot summary that make me laugh:

"If either a red slaad or blue slaad infects an arcane spellcaster, the host will spawn a green slaad...".
"If the death slaad survives a century, it turns into the demonic white slaad."

I have a question: if a green slaad, white and red slaad get together, do they make a slaad tricolore? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just Ceasar slaad. I couldn't resist, sorry. :) BOZ (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No idea what article looked like before, but it's clearly well sourced now. Could use a fair bit of clean up. Hobit (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike most D&D monster articles, this one has references from beyond the limited publishing sphere of WotC and TSR. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gavin's behavior & excuses for deletion are getting old.--Robbstrd (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and ban Gavin Collins. im just getting so sick and tired of his approach of delete rather than fix. its nice he has proof that the article may or may not have "reliable" resources, but he refuses to EVER see if any exist and try to add them himself. in Gavin's Wikipedia they would only be articles he likes. sorry, but i see personal agenda in his motives and they do not appear to be something to help wikipedia, but rather to destroy articles. you win Gavin. destroy wikipedia all you want. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not presenting any keep rationale... only incivility and personal attacks that may earn you a block. If you think it worthwhile, I recommend posting at AN/I instead and see what admins think. User:Dorftrottel 14:04, January 29, 2008
Dorf, you're saying that because you are unaware of the broader context. After months of continuous, ill-informed and disruptive harassment from this user, I fully support Shadzar's position--he is right on the money. Freederick (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, primarily for laudable efforts to write with the real world as primary frame of reference, accompanyied by the best sources available. User:Dorftrottel 14:04, January 29, 2008
Keep as article is sourced and concerns an aspect of a notable work of fiction. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you just look at the ref section, or did you look into the refs themselves? Which ones do you find the most and the least convincing, respectively? As "major aspect ectpp.": According to WP:FICT that's not in and of itself a reason to have a separate article; only if the main article gets overlong. User:Dorftrottel 02:17, January 30, 2008
  - It's good that there is a combination of interviews, online sources, and published books. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - i think therein lies the problem. does D&D adhere strictly to fiction? while the game is telling a story of sorts, does it make everything about the game fiction? never in 30+ years have i seen D&D put into a proper niche than as a game. while i think there is a LARGE bit of fiction derived from it and vice versa does D&D solely belong to the category of fiction? not in the terms as it is not fact, non-fiction, but in the terms of D&D isnt a story in and of itself. each of these articles should be judged on how they are presented in relation to D&D the game rather than just as characters in a novel. maybe by properly figuring out what policies and guidelines fit with D&D and its many aspects would help identify the problems with articles related to it, and even the other roleplaying games and such that are similar but "break the molds" of standard board and card games. shadzar|Talk|contribs 02:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced and nominator appears to have either not read or not understood the subject. A fictional race is not a character, let alone a stock character. Based on the nominator's unique use of the term stock character, hobbit would be a stock character from Lord of the Rings, Klingon would be a stock character from Star Trek, and wookie would be a stock character from Star Wars. And with the nominator's suggesting that people disagreeing with him have a tenuous grasp on the real world, he is being anything but civil. Edward321 (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appeared across 3 decades of diverse D&D material, created by notable author and will have referneces outside this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very much recurring bunch of jolly outsiders, peppered around a giant bunch of D&D material. If it's in Monster Manual, the chances are it's found in a bazillion other places, official D&D material or not! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator sites: WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL, WP:WAF, and fancruft. It should be pointed out that NONE of those are reasons for delete or to bring an AFD. Web Warlock (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And, yet, they are still routinely used as such, by the same people who prefer to pretend that Wikipedia Guidelines are really Wikipedia Policies. Unfortunately, sometimes (but not always) some administrators agree with them. We'll see on this one: we're currently looking at 16 keeps vs. 3 deletes. As I was reminded recently on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death knight, an overwhelming number of Keep votes guarantees nothing, but we've seen the ultimate result on that debate haven't we? BOZ (talk) 22:15, 2 February 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. Core desat 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book hidden face of credit[edit]

Someone afd-tagged the article (a prod tag had been previously removed) but didn't complete the nomination process. The article's author then left a comment on the empty debate page. I'm just filling the gaps in the nomination process so the discussion can begin. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a book published some years ago. It is not promotion or advertising. This is the first time I am using Wikipedia. And so far it is turning out to be very frustrating, as I seem to be fighting some automated machine.

I tried to follow the format used for other book in the approach to describe the book and its contents. So please someone (not a computer automated response explain to me the necessary corrections)????

I use the following layout to product this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacking:_The_Art_of_Exploitation

(the preceding stuff is the original comment left by User:JorgeS on the empty debate page)

Delete per lack of notability/reviews for this book. Corpx (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per lack of notability. Dear Jorge, a) you should not try to promote your own book here; it IS advertising where you have a conflict of interest. Referring to another article is not a good reason to keep this article: it may well be that the other article should be deleted too. This should be speedily deleted.--Gregalton (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this article was written in an neutral and informative way, some one else can make corrections or additions since that is my understanding of the process. It it not discussing if the book is excellent but rather narrating its content the same layout approach I found in other articles about books. Can someone make appropriate corrections and additions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeS (talk • contribs)

Comment: the question that remains is why a book on a common topic, written in French, is notable enough to include in the English-language wikipedia. Please see wp:notability for more on the guidelines on notability. Is the book written about in English (like the English press, or cited in academic studies, or ever referred to)? Noted as a phenomenally new contribution to economics (or whatever)? Why is the book so notable that there should be a wikipedia entry about it? If it has not been re-issued since 1991, why? (For example, Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations is clearly notable. Many books exist, but they are not all written about here, nor should they be).

You should also make your conflict of interest clear if, as it appears, you are the author.--Gregalton (talk) 11:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment. You cite wp:notability but then ask "Is the book written about in English (like the English press, or cited in academic studies, or ever referred to)?" Where does wp:notability say anything about the language of the sources? --Paularblaster (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I only meant it in the sense of potential interest - if the book is only notable because it covers a topic, but there are ones in the same language as this Wikipedia, they would naturally be of more interest (assuming there is no content that is entirely original). But I recognise that is not necessarily a criterion, and that I can't speak to the content of the book. I retract the langague point. It still does not meet notability criteria, however.--Gregalton (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears there really is nothing significant/notable about this book; other than the language it was written and a summary of its contents, there is no mention of whether the book has had any impact on its field of discussion. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete While it seems the author of this article may honestly just be a little unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, that does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, and neither do any of the provided references, some of which are not in EnglishBeeblbrox (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please don't bring the language of the sources back into this discussion. As explained above that is irrelevant and only serves to cloud the issue. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I assume that the author acted in good faith, but the book does not meet notability criteria. The subject matter should be incorporated into individual articles, such as Identity theft. If someone with no connection to the author believes that the book is an important reference to one of those articles, that independent editor can add a citation to the book as a reference. Adding See also references to this article about the book is not the appropriate way to go. Racepacket (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources given are a library catalog entry of the type which pretty well any book published in Canada would have, two self-published sources and a reference in a promotional newsletter issued by an investment company. A Google web search in English and French only adds a couple of conference speaker bios, and Google book and news archive searches find nothing. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not so sure it is irrelevant. This is an article on the English language version, how can anyone who does not speak or read French verify that these sources even relate to the article, let alone determine the notability of the subject? Beeblbrox (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment again Not usually the type to quote these things but WP:RSUE seems to back my point. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:18, 1 February 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. Core desat 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swedes who died in the Spanish Civil War[edit]

Non-encyclopedic/non-notability. Information about every person who died in a particular war is hardly relevant for an encyclopedia. We don't have "List of Germans who died in World War II" etc. for the same reason. Slarre (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honour rolls and the like are generally deleted as being unencyclopedic, and this seems to be no exception. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not an obituary/listing of everyone who died during a certain conflict. Corpx (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list of mostly non-notable people.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I think "Wikipedia is not a memorial" gets overused (so does "non-notable people", for that matter), this is one of those cases where the bar on memorials definitely applies. No objections to an article about Swedes and other international brigades in the Spanish Civil War, but it's hard to describe this as anything other than a memorial. Mandsford (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree. Encyclopedic coverage of Swedes participating in the Spanish Civil War should be possible and encyclopedic (I presume it's been done already), but this list remains unnecessary.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic topic, non-notable trivia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it feels like I'm taking a piss on their memory here by voting delete, but I'm voting per nom, so bear with me. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:02, 31 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. Tyrenius (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Dubois[edit]

Artist without evidence of notability. Page deleted twice before (through prod and speedy), it's time to discuss this once and for all. Among the 52 Google hits[28], none indicate any notability. Most are simply listings of painters, and his homepage. No Google scholar[29] or Google books hits[30] (there are hits for other Philippe Dubois (a rather common name), but not for this one. Has won a minor award, exposition in a local museum. Fram (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Tyrenius (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. His work has been on a Belgian postage stamp, which is about the best that can be said about him. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 28 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 as basic notability has been established through references in article and here. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bylund[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The article does not explain why this person has any notability outside of his subject. He has apparently edited some book and designed some "anarchist logo", but not acheived much more that would deserve an article of its own. Slarre (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been listed as an Anarchism Task Force article for deletion. Lord Metroid (talk) 09:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Secondary source creiteria has been fulfilled: Per Bylund has been covered by independent third party, Sveriges Television covered the Walk for Capitalism 2001 mentioned in the article which Per arranged. (Added reference to the article) Lord Metroid (talk) 09:44, 28January 2008 (UTC)

That's just one source. Furthermore, PB is not the the main subject of attention in that news clip. /Slarre (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is an easy one. Being on the news once doesn't make someone notable.--Carabinieri (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been noticed by Per Bylund and discussed at anarchism.net's forum

Comment Per Bylud may not measure up to the standards here at this established source of information. This is funny. Who does measure up? How many people need to be tortured to measure up? How much murder is enough? The standards would have to be raised to credit this ‘source’ of information with an association to Per Bylud – good luck with the revenue scheme. The competition is knocking. Joseph Thomas Kelley (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bylund on Anarchism.net argues for his notability in the discussion on anarchism.net's forum, I think it is only fair to bring forth his argumentation for the opportunity to be taken into consideration so I quote:

“

I would say this "Slarre" is trying to get my name off the Wikipedia. He could easily make a google search, check my CV, or even read the Wikipedia article to see that I do fulfill the criteria. But something tells me he is not interested.

I don't intend to spend any time on this, but consider for instance:
Wikipedia: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Just a few examples from Google: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

Everything isn't available on the Internet, of course. Most of my TV and radio appearances (e.g. a debate w/ Per Wirtén on EU and voting, a debate w/ Goran Greider on ideology, and a discussion with Alexandra Pascalidou on reasons not to vote) aren't on the media corporations' respective web sites. As for my own stuff, I would say it is pretty easy to see where it has been published (apart from the web, in a number of journals and newspaper in Sweden, the UK and the US).

But let's have a quick look further.

Wikipedia: ...local political figures who have received significant press coverage

This is certainly true and it is pretty obvious even from the Wikipedia article; I was in local and regional news media every single week for two years, and appeared occasionally in national ditto as well. I even received a prize for this effort, which is evident from my CV: the Gosta Boman Scholarship. Does that mean it is recognized work? I don't know.

But, all this is only "evidence" if you are really interested - not if you are mostly interested in deleting.

- Per Bylund

”

source I couln't add to quote due to parse error, Maybe somewhat fervent on my part to post what Per had to say regarding the deletion proposal but I edited the article extensively(relative to my own standards) Lord Metroid (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The design of a logo that has international usuage and recognition, makes him worthy of a mention, and this is far from his only role in politics. I had found this article informative, and had stumbled upon it whilst reading about many other left-libertarian topics, and it helped me locate other useful infomation outside of wikipedia. The article is short, concise and relevant. Lostsocks (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All those links prove nothing. Most of them are articles written by Bylund, so they hardly qualify as secondary sources. Two or three of them are blogs, which hardly qualify as reliable. The other ones are just brief, rather trivial, mentions. That is no way enough to establish notability. The fact that the aricle "is short, concise and relevant", that it "helped [you] locate other useful infomation outside of wikipedia", or whatever doesn't matter, because it doesn't make the topic any more notable. Please base your arguments on the notability criteria.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a default. I can't speak swedish and am concerned about systemic bias of anglophone countries and websites as it is. Notability is likely though more solid sourcing would help. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 09:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Could be notable" is not a reason to keep. Notability has to be proved.--Carabinieri (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I am making an assumption on what I read. If it looks likely on the balance of evidence, then I am happy for the time being until more sources can be found. As opposed to unlikely in some other AfDs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable anarchist figure. Absurd to delete. Zazaban (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was gonna stay out of this one, but I really wish we could hold ourselves to higher standards than blanket statements of "notable", without providing any evidence from reliable sources. Murderbike (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, I really didn't have a whole lot of time when I wrote that. Zazaban (talk) 00:18, 6 February 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 as a notable character and per improvements by Otto4711 et al. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Snell[edit]

Article about a fictional character that fails WP:FICT (guidline which is disputed) and WP:NOT#PLOT (policy that is not disputed). It contains no out-of-universe information and is a very long plot summary from four different adapatations, but still just that; that does not make it more notable in the real-world. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As much as I'm against "fancruft", this may be a a "main character" in the story and warrant its own page, even if all it contains is plot summary. However, as I've never read the book/seen the shows, I cant judge the importance of her character. Corpx (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Carrie (novel). I've read the book, and Sue Snell is an important secondary character at best. That being said, as hbdragon88 points out above, this article fails WP:V and WP:N and thus doesn't belong on this particular wiki. --jonny-m t 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it's difficult to tell from the limited previews, there appears to be some critical commentary about the character here, here and here. A little bit about the casting of Amy Irving in the role here. Additional Google books hits here although some of them are by a real person of the same name, and Google scholar results here. Otto4711 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the above links don't appear to be linking properly, but all of the book hits are available through the book hits link. Otto4711 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carrie (novel) as per User:jonny-mt. User:Dorftrottel 14:09, January 29, 2008

While I still strongly dispute the notion of redirecting or deleting this article, if it is redirected it should be to a List of characters from Carrie because there is verifiable information here that is separate from the novel, a little of which I've added and sources for additional are available. The contention that the article contains no out-of-universe information is no longer true. Otto4711 (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's great OOU information but borders on so minimal that it seems that it better belongs in the main novel article opposed to Sue Snell or a list of characters one. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused. The nomination is based on the notion that real-world information is lacking, and when presented with real-world information you still are advocating for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only one who has stated a desire to delete. I have not reiterated that statemente. The rest want to merge, redirect, which means the AFD will probably be closed as such, with the merging being left as an editorial decision to the editors of this article. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I looked through the sources you found, and I have to agree with Hbdragon88. First, the article as it stands would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic--I don't think anyone is doubting that. Second, while I agree that there is now verifiable secondary information on the character (and have stricken my comment above accordingly), the issue of "significant coverage" as specified in WP:N is not satisfied as I see it. It's clear from the sources (and from subsequent poking around) that Carrie is definitely notable under these standards, but Sue is only mentioned as a contrast or in conjunction with Carrie--she does not receive sizeable coverage in her own right. I rather like your idea of redirecting to a list of characters in Carrie, but I simply don't believe the article can stand on its own. --jonny-m t 04:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I highly suspect there will be significant independent detailed literature on Carrie and the characters within. There aren't many characters within it and it is a very notable and influential book of the time. There will be enough detail of someone has some horror/etc commentary to add. The character also pervades several media (book and two films) which would have separate article pages. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real world content discussing the role in the different adaptations and sequels. This is the sort of information the fiction deletionists often ask for. An important character in a very important fiction. At least one academic source--the sort of source they ask for also. Is the actual motive to decrease WP coverage of the field entirely, in good faith that it would benefit the encyclopedia? I know some people say they want to do this, but that would be a major policy decision that I do not think would be accepted. Doing it article by article is not acceptable either. What people read, film, and comment on in the real world is notable in the real world. DGG (talk) 15:28, 5 February 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 as vandalism by Dloh cierekim . """Numerous reasons cited below confirmed. Dloh cierekim 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWF[edit]

Probable WP:HOAX. (from the talk page) All sources which are quoted in the article as referring to "FWF" are in reality referring to rap group N.W.A. All claims are an apparent transcription of similar assertions on the N.W.A article. For a group supposedly founded in the 1980s you'd expect to see more than zero Ghits. Zedla (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete A hoax, and not a very funny one at that. Their MySpace page has a couple songs, they sound like a bunch of drunk teenagers Beeblbrox (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy As nonsense....The (valid) links in the article are talking about something entirely different. This is nonsense Corpx (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete complete and total trash. JuJube (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense, I concur with Corpx in this regard. Links have nothing to do with such a band. Beeblbrox is also at least half right - looks more like kids with too much spare time. Drunk teenagers wouldn't be able to type straight and couldn't stay focused long enough. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 28 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. Please note, I did not merge any content, nor will I be. If someone else (non-admin) would like a copy of the deleted material to perform a merge, please ask on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Turnbuckle[edit]

Insufficiently notable. A student radio program on a 30 watt college radio station which doesn't show up on the station schedule. No Ghits other than primary sources and nothing on google news. Zedla (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. I have to agree with the nominator. At best the content should be merged with the radio station's page (KASC). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge sounds like a plan to me. This doesn't merit it own article, but a summary in the radio stations page might be in order. Beeblbrox (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 5 February 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 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Phallic Building contest[edit]

Prod removed by author. I tried to clean this up a few months ago, but no notability has been established. It was a one-off contest by a quasi-notable magazine; notability is not inherited. As far as the references listed go, the first is a dead link, the second and third are blogs, the fourth is someone's personal website, the fifth is not free and the sixth is to the magazine itself, which can't be used to establish notability. If anything, this should be a redirect to Cabinet (magazine) faithless (^speak) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Cabinet (magazine). No notability as an award. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Some editing has been done to the article, so the order of the references as described in the nomination is now different. The first link (Kansas City Star) has been fixed, but it goes to a non-free article. Two sources have been added, both of which mention the contest only briefly. faithless (^speak) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge although "the brick dick" is pretty funny, this doesn't seem very notable on it's own Beeblbrox (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment- who is this beeblbrox guy without a user name? Does he have a say? why?JJJ999 (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would he have any less right to his opinion than you do? V-train (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Captain Impartial, as you've doubtless been seen arguing in other pages, wikirules are supposed to give less weight to non-users. This guys doesn't really have a profile as far as I can see, he may as well be a random IP, nor does he offer any reasons. the guy smacks of the sort of vote you ignore, or weight less, he comes on after a few months, posts a series on one liner "delete"s in a swath of votes, and disappears for a few months again.JJJ999 (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment well, thanks a lot for the personal attack, I appreciate the attention. I have a user name, as you can plainly see. The reason I don't have a profile page is because I don't care about having a profile page. I've been reading Wikipedia for a long time and started getting involved in these debates because there is too much irrelevant content on Wikipedia, in my humble opinion. Again, thanks for belittling me, it's folks like you that scare off inexperienced users...Beeblbrox (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying you might not be here in Good faith, but there is a reason other people cite these rules when it suits them. I don't know who you are, except that you come on every few months, post one liners on a bunch of AfDs, then go again. This is very frustrating, especially when the sourcing of an article changes over time, as this one has. It gives the impression you're not even following what's happening, and frankly I have to wonder with your record for posting how you even came to notice this remark. Half your (small number of edits) are for AfDs, what am I supposed to think? Certainly not of someone who is unfamiliar with wikipediaJJJ999 (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep the sources aren't great (mainly blog posts and the like), but they're not too bad given the topic so I think that this just scrapes past WP:N. If it's deleted the title could be added to WP:FREAKY and if it survives it should definetly be listed at WP:ODD. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually I removed the prod, and I'm not the author - I'd never heard of this before I came across the article with a prod tag on it. There's nothing that says that sources need to be available online, or without paying. Anyway I've fixed the Kansas City Star link, and you can check the Esquire reference at any decent library in the English-speaking world. I've also added references from the Los Angeles Times, The Age and a book published by a major publisher of works on architecture. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was incorrect; you made this edit? I assumed it was the author of the article as 1. the IP has edited the same articles as JJJ999 and 2. the edit summary appears to be signed. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 10:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what happened now. It seems that I forgot to actually remove the prod tag, even though I had stated that that was my intention, but some IP user came along afterwards and removed it anyway with that strange edit summary. That wasn't me. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Redirect Some mild notability is established, but I think we'd be better off moving most of the contents to the magazine's article Corpx (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Bad Faith- the coincidence of this occuring 1 day after I had one of faithless pages deleted cannot be ignored, and likewise I feel a contest which is published and held by prestigious magazines like Slate is clearly notable. No evidence of a persuasive sort to the contrary.JJJ999 (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, no one "owns" any article on Wikipedia. Second, I don't care that that article was deleted. You might remember that I didn't even argue against its deletion. Please be a little more careful when accusing others of bad faith - you've had trouble with this in the past. faithless (^speak) 11:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dude, I haven't claimed anyone "owns" anything on wikipedia, given the speed of your reply (under 3 mins!?) it sounds like you rehearsed your speech in advance without even reading what I said. If people here choose to believe it is pure coincidence that you AfD'd the page I created only 1 day after your authored page was deleted, that's up to them. I merely suggest occam's razor poses to me an alternative spin. Your own rational for the nomination isn't even sound! You claim you suggested improvements, and no edits were made, which the above comments show is false. This nom should be cut down for sheer silliness.JJJ999 (talk) 11:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a four sentence (hardly a "speech") response - what about that suggests it was "rehearsed?" So when you wrote, "...I had one of faithless pages deleted..." you weren't suggesting ownership? My rationale is quite sound - this contest isn't notable. The sources cited pretty much fit into one of two categories: unreliable blogs or passing mentions. Cabinet (magazine) is of borderline notability at best; a one-off contest held by the magazine doesn't come close to being notable. Furthermore, I did not, "...claim [I] suggested improvements, and no edits were made..." I said I cleaned up the article, and notability has not been established. Please don't twist my words. faithless (^speak) 12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't even get the references right! And you fail to note it was covered in other magazines like Slate... not that Cabinent isn't notable either. You haven't done anything to alter the previous consensus it was notable. I don't know what the numbers on Cabinent are off hand, but the other magazine it was covered in, with the back and forth, Slate magazine, has Annual Revenue: $3.9 billion USD · Employees: 14,800. Yeh, borderline notable... pfft, and the contest is available on numerous 3rd party sites, not just "blogs", even a simple google search could demonstrate this. End of argument.JJJ999 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? What do you mean I couldn't get the references right? I assume you mean that after I nominated the article, Phil Bridger added more references, which made my earlier statements no longer valid, as the number and order of sources was different. Was it covered in Slate? Funny, it isn't one of the sources. And I'm sorry, what earlier consensus? faithless (^speak) 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly it's bad faith in my humble opinion, because a) it comes 1 day after your article went, b) you have made no substantive improvements or added anything to the discussion page, and c) you have misrepresented the notability. The "Blog" of a famous author for example is not without notability, no more than Christopher Hitchens or Noam Chomsky's websites or blogs are to be treated like some kids site. Jonathan Ames for example is one of the "mere blogs" you cite. Given he is notable enough to have his own wiki page, I suggest that is a source right there. There are also numerous other sources, and it was certainly in an article in Slate magazine I saw, though I'm not going to go look for it now, assuming it's online. Sure, this could be good faith, I just look at the above factors and am extremely skeptical. you have additionally gone deliberately to the talk page of numerous people asking for them to come vote here, under the pretext of "informing those who have edited it", though given several of them are friends of yours I am pretty skeptical of your motives again. I am glad the first one to reply has gone against you.JJJ999 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I informed everyone who edited the article that it was nominated, so don't accuse me of canvassing (and for the record, the first to reply argued to delete it). Second, again, it wasn't "my" article, just as this isn't "your" article, so stop referring to them that way. Third, again, I didn't even argue to keep that other article! I don't see how I can make it any clearer than that. I showed you where I said back in October that the article ought to be deleted, so stop trying to paint this as bad faith. I don't care that that article was deleted, nor did I try to prevent its deletion. Fourth, I misrepresented nothing; a blog is a blog. All I said was that it was a blog...where is the misrepresentation? Fifth, sorry, but we can't take your word for it; "it was certainly in an article in Slate magazine I saw, though I'm not going to go look for it now." It doesn't work that way. Sixth, "friends of mine?!" I have only ever come across one of them before, so please stop with the bad faith accusations already. faithless (^speak) 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JJJ, if you want to make allegations of bad faith then this is not the place to do it. I agree with you that this should be kept, but the way to get that done is not to make personal attacks on the AfD nominator. The article was very weakly referenced when it was nominated so it was completely valid to bring it to AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done with him anyway... but not only was it in Slate, and I will find it sometime, but one of the current footnotes is from Esquire magazine, an even bigger publication than Slate.JJJ999 (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it with the sources. Add it to WP:UNUSUAL.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to meet WP:Notability.--Appraiser (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Phil Bridger has done an admirable job in trying to fix up the article by providing sources. However, none of the sources go very far in establishing notability. The Los Angeles Times, for example, is a review of a book by Ames which mentions the contest only in passing. The same is true of the High Society book and the Esquire article. The sources from Ames's blog and Cabinet magazine are not independent of the subject, and therefore can't be used to establish notability. Certainly the best source in the article would be from the Kansas City Star; if there were more like this, the article would be fine. But one good source along with several passing mentions and blog posts isn't enough to establish notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." faithless (^speak) 10:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- firstly, both the sources you list as "not independent of the subject" are notable, making it fairly mute. As though a NY Times journalists blog, discussing a scandal at the NT Times, and subsequently printed in the Times itself, would somehow lose credibility as a source. Secondly, your arguments are totally disingenous, because Phil demonstrated before you nominated this the ease of improving it with sources. The argument of "well, maybe there are more sources, but I don't think the 9 refs at present are good enough" is self defeating. You should have argued for this on the talk page, or added a tag on referencing, which in turn would have led to people like Phil adding sources. You never were serious about this process, you just nominated it for an AfD, and given it was 1 day after I had your article deleted, I think we can all speculate why. Pardon me if I don't take your complaints seriously.JJJ999 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting that you aren't interested in participating in a constructive discussion, and going on to insult me yet again. First, tags have been placed on the article, and they've done no good. Second, I don't think you understand my point; the Ames and Cabinet articles are fine as sources to verify information in the article, but they can't be used to establish notability because, as I said above, they are not independent of the subject. I don't know how to break that down any further for you. Third, you've repeatedly accused me of bad faith, here and elsewhere, while never explaining yourself (never mind that doing so breaks one of our most important guidelines). Such comments can be construed as personal attacks, so I would strongly suggest you think twice about making such unfounded accusations in the future. faithless (^speak) 07:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added tags, and what happened? People improved it. What should your next step have been if you were not satisfied with the improvements? Go to the talk page, or re-tag it, specifying exactly why it was inadequete. You have not made serious attempts to improve the article, and you have made no attempts to create a discussion on the talk page. You are apparently not serious about improving it, so why should we be serious about your questionable criticisms?

Add-on- also, on checking it doesn't appear you added any tags anyway, and your buddy V-Train only added tags declaring it "orphaned", and when this was remedied his response was a combination of trying to track the pages which it now linked to, and argue why it shouldn't be mentioned, and to re-tag it/shift standards for an orphaned article. The good thing to come out of this AfD is it will now be mentioned in another couple of pages, bringing the total to about 15 or so. JJJ999 (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but faithless is not my buddy, I don't know the guy. Secondly, I didn't add the orphan tag. It was added (rightfully) by another user, and you removed it for no reason even though the article WAS orphaned at the time. All I did was revert your edit. You removed it again, and someone else re-added it. The tag ended up doing exactly what it is supposed to: it spurred improvement of the article to make the tag unnecessary. You act like tags are some kind of scarlet letter when their purpose is to make Wikipedia better. I would ask you assume good faith, but you've shown that to be a waste of time. V-train (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you personally knew the guy, you post an awful lot with him though...JJJ999 (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Perhaps a brief mention or merge to Cabinet (magazine). -RiverHockey (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It does seem to have substantial coverage in reliable sources (KC Star, LA Times, Esquire, 1 book). Altairisfar _talk 04:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was brought to my attention on my talk page that Most Phallic building was deleted back in September, apparently speedily, since no AfD exists for it. However, the current article is substantially different, so this really shouldn't affect the outcome of this AfD. Just an FYI to whoever closes this. faithless (^speak) 05:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was brought to my attention by another poster the irony of a user called "Faithless" making accusations of good faith, especially in these circumstances. Not that it's relevant, I just thought I'd throw it out there FYIJJJ999 (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete One off contest in minor magazine with incidental coverage. Non-notable. It's now linked to many wikipedia articles (e.g. 1890 in art, Phallus, 1890 in architecture, List of architecture prizes) resulting in undue weight to what is nothing more than a one-off joke award, hardly an "architecture prize", as jjj999 would have us believe. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nom and Pete Hurd. Also, the LA Times ref is about Ames' book, not this contest. Other than possibly the KC Star (we don't know for sure since the article is archived), I fail to see significant coverage in independent sources as WP:N requires. V-train (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment on above friends of Faithless - The above is simply untrue, nor is the "number of articles it links to" a factor for deletion last time I checked. It has independent noteable coverage, and at each point it's been challenged, there have been more sources added to back it up. This should be kept and wikipedians should be allowed to continue their efforts to improve it in good faith, something you have shown no interest in. For no apparent reason but FYI, I decided to link this here too (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pete.Hurd&diff=prev&oldid=188327463), man, could you be any more hungry to get rid of this? V-Train, don't you have some other pages I've authored or edited to attack as usual?JJJ999 (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : as per Altairisfar. Europe22 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has indep sources. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

** MOVE TO KEEP- this has had the 5 days and more, and there is a clear consensus to keep, particularly from the independent users. By independent, I mean people who were not called to come here, or "notified", or discussed it with faithless at some point during this AfD. At the very least, with 10-6 in favour of keeping, and the disagreement being largely subjective views on notability, this would easily get no consensus, if one were charitable to the delete side. In such a case where it's based on personal views of notability, the article should get the benefit of the doubt anyway, especially when it's been improved at each stage of criticism.JJJ999 (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (after edit conflict) Faithless notified you and me about this discussion, so by your logic we are not independent and our contributions should be discounted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) People not notified by Faithless which also excluded you or I would be an embarassing 7-1 in favour of keep I believe. 7-2 if I count Beelbrox, who I'm not convinced has read any of the discussion here in depth, or followed the edits, as this shows http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080128092719&target=Beeblbrox he made 4 votes on AfD in 21 minutes, and that seems to be his pattern. I am incredibly skeptical he read this in depth, especially going through all the sources in the 9 minutes before his previous vote. His subsequent vote took a grand total of 3 minutes. could he be reading, then coming back to vote later? Sure, I just find it incredibly unlikely. 2) I don't see why I should discount people who made positive attempts to improve the article, I can't say that of people like P.Hurd, vegas or Faithless, I can say that of you and I.JJJ999 (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And so, I'm that one in favor of delete, right? My opinion was in no way canvassed, and this idea that !voters, wikipedians in good standing, should not be "counted" runs completely against the idea of AfD. This is not a vote, this is not simply a tally of people's positions. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, again I wasn't aware that I had to convince every other participant in an AfD debate that I had the right to have an opinion. Thanks, MrJJJ999, fot taking time out of your busy day to once again single me out and show me the error of my ways. These debates are about the article, not the people involved. As such a wise and experienced Wikipedian, you were doubtless already aware of that though. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Beelbrox, I already explained what I thought. You spent 9 minutes between your last AfD and this one, and alot less on some of them. Did you really go through the sources and comments carefully in that time? This sort of glance voting with flippant comments when an article is undergoing major changes is frustrating, especially absent reasons. That is allJJJ999 (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
whatever The point is that this is a debate about whether the subject of this article is notable, and here we are arguing about the merits of the way I participate in AfD discussions. If you are really that concerned, drop me a line at my talk page, but leave it out of the AfD debate.Beeblbrox (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, you don't use your talk page. Something odd is going on here.JJJ999 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to wannabe_kate, he's got over 150 edits, and over half of his edits are to mainspace. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy requiring someone to edit their userpage, (though WP:USER recommends redirecting it to your Talk page if you choose not to have one). -- RoninBK _{T C} 17:19, 4 February 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. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Argenziano[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Argenziano

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources independent of the subject. Delete all of the Columbia surgeon articles currently in AfD for the same reason. DarkAudit (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient third-party sources. -- Renesis (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I agree that a number of this series are not worthy of articles I believe this is an exception. Medline has 78 papers by "M Argenziano", including several reviews, nearly all of which seem to be his, and Google Scholar finds three papers with over a hundred citations, a further five with over fifty, and a further nine with over twenty. He has edited or co-edited two books (one in press). He is the lead investigator on several multicentre trials of robotic surgery, see eg [39]. He has been featured by Crain's New York Business, which states he was the first US surgeon to perform a coronary bypass using robotic surgery.[40] as well as New York Magazine "Best Doctor Hall of Fame 2002" [41]. He has received several prizes, at least some of which seem notable, eg Allen O. Whipple Prize for Excellence in Surgery, Blakemore Award for Excellence in Surgical Research, Sandoz Award for Excellence in Research, and Claire-Lucille Pace Humanitarian Award. I believe he meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes every criterion of WP:PROF, as demonstrated by Espresso Addict. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because he passes every criterion of WP:PROF. Vegetationlife (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems fine. Every account starts as an WP:SPA. Figures in robotic surgery are notable enough due to the fact that the extremely technical nature of the field limits the number of practitioners. « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:33 2008 February 3 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathie-Ann Joseph[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Medline finds around 18 papers for "KA Joseph" which appear to be her; Google Scholar finds three with at least 20 citations. She is featured in Crain's New York Business [42] as well as Fox News.com [43] and (according to her CV) New York Moves Magazine. I believe she narrowly fails WP:PROF at this time. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe doesn't get through WP:PROF, but the Crain's and Fox News sources make her notable on general WP:N and WP:BIO criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as perhaps a notable clinician. I am not sure all the mentions of her listed are substantial--the Crains one is not actually referenced. 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Emond[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=je111&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article Hu12 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Named professorship. Medline finds 119 articles for "JC Emond" which on a quick scan nearly all look to be him, including several high-profile reviews eg in Annu Rev Med & J Am Coll Surg. Google Scholar finds two papers with over 250 citations, a further three with >100, and many with >50. He meets my definition of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More importantly he meets Wikipedia's definition of WP:PROF. In fact he passes every criterion, even though only one is required: Google news shows that he passes 1, the citations take care of 2-4, the liver transplant work gets him through 5 and the named professorship 6. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is some misunderstanding here about COI: it does not make the subject unnotable or the article subject to being deleted. Being based on a web page is not copyvio. copying it or directly paraphrasing it is copyvio, though it is true that a good deal of COI material from PR people is copyvio, so it is right to have checked it. Some of what this PR person entered is clearly acceptable here--like this. Notable both as a researcher and clinician. "Director of Transplantation NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY" -- this counts as head of the service at a major teaching hospital--subject to correction, it amounts to the same status as chairman of the dept at a corresponding medical school. Professor of Surgery and Pediatrics at Columbia, reflecting the research--and it is the recognition of the research which makes scholars notable. DGG (talk) 00:38, 31 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. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Hardy[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. Hu12 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Lquilter (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has held named professorship since 1991. Holds couple of honorary PhDs. Medline finds 227 papers for "MA Hardy" + transplantation; several are in highly prestigious journals eg N Engl J Med, Science and many others are in well-respected subject-specific journals eg Transplantation. Google Scholar results are hard to interpret due to the common nature of his name, but he has one paper with 180 citations, another with 93 and several with over 50. He has co-edited three books. Meets my definition of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And clearly meets all the criteria of Wikipedia's definition of WP:PROF, even though only one is required. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honorary degrees, besides what the other people have. This sort of nom is either based on carelessness or a misreading of WP:COI. DGG (talk) 00:40, 31 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 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Sonett[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professor. Medline finds 45 papers for "JR Sonett", nearly all of which seem to be his, predominantly in respected subject-specific journals, including several reviews. Google Scholar finds 79 & 66 citations for two of his papers, and a further five with >20 citations. Operating on Clinton suggests leadership in his surgical field.[44] Borderline, but probably meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's check him against the WP:PROF criteria:

1) Two New York Times articles mentioned in article. Plenty more at Google News.

2-4) Demonstrated by his citation record.

5) The work on EDC organs.

6) Awards are listed in the article.

Remember that only of these is required to pass WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep I think itsclear by now that these were not reasonable nominations. DGG (talk) 00:43, 31 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 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kandel[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=jjk47&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Medline finds 29 papers for "JJ Kandel", some in high-profile journals eg PNAS and many more in well-respected subject-specific journals eg Cancer Res; there are also a few reviews. Google Scholar finds over 100 citations for two of her papers, both on vascular endothelial growth factor, with a further two over 50, and several over 20. Borderline, but probably meets WP:PROF for the VEGF work. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations found by Espresso Addict show that she passes criteria 2-4 of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A little less notable than some of the others. But why perhaps copyvio--its a web source and we can all check--if it were it would have been speedily deleted, but its just based on it. DGG (talk) 00:51, 31 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. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Fowler[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with numerous bios of run of the mill specialists. Eusebeus (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Full professor. Over 40 Medline papers for "DL Fowler", mainly seem to be this one, predominantly in well-respected subject-specific journals. Google Scholar finds one paper with >100 citations, and four more with over 20. His Columbia CV claims various laparoscopic firsts,[45] -- while not independent, this seems a reasonably reliable source. Borderline but probably meets WP:PROF for his laparoscopic innovations. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good citation record and significant firsts satisfy WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CVs are accepted for bio details, and Medline is an independent source for publications and citations. Its the peer-reviewers who certify the notability independently of what those connected to the subject may say.DGG (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic content. --Funper (talk) 22:34, 3 February 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. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Jan[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=dj2107&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. Full professor. 115 Medline papers, most of which appear to be him, some in well-respected journals eg Gut, Transplantation; also several reviews. Google Scholar finds one paper with >50 citations, and at least five more with >20 citations. Borderline ~~but tipped to delete by the agenda of the creating editor.~~ Espresso Addict (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that we should be assuming good faith here, and not deleting any articles based on any supposed agenda by the author. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my recommendation, as I was probably overly swayed by the sheer number of similar AfDs. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record probably satisfies criterion 3 of WP:PROF, and the unique approach which the subject introduced satisfies criterion 5. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a sign of COI that a considerable number of full professors at columbia med school are notable. that's why they get appointed in the first place. DGG (talk) 00:46, 31 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. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Wood-Smith[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=dw40&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually no sources independent of the subject. Inclusion on a "Best of" list does not equal coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ keep. Full professor since 1991 and elected fellow of the Scottish Royal College of Surgeons. ~~However, Medline finds only two papers, though Google Scholar finds several others suggesting that the Medline coverage might be poor for older papers in his field.~~ Medline finds 30 articles for "Wood Smith D" mainly in respectable subject-specific journals, with a specialism in craniofacial surgery, where he appears to be an expert. Co-authored two books, one of which has 54 citations in Google Scholar. Borderline, but leaning to delete given the agenda of the creating editor. Willing to change my mind if someone else brings fresh evidence, as I suspect Medline & Google are severely underrepresenting his contributions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepprovisionally--there is probably something wrong with the Medline search. someone who has written these books & chapters of standard works must have published more. I suspect the hypenated name. DGG (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, repeating on "Wood Smith D" works. I've never had that problem before. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is chairman of multiple teaching hospital departments over last 20-30 years (Manhattan Eye & Ear, New York Eye & Ear), Director of a post-graduate surgical training program in plastic & reconstructive surgery, and a full-professor at Columbia (Formerly at NYU as well) (See Online CV and institution websites). Less importantly, he is cited in multiple popular press articles as an expert (e.g. New York Times, New York Post, Sunday Times-London etc) (See changes to page for direct citations). This appears to satisfy criteria 1. As previously stated, numerous works with multiple citations in well-known journals in field (Ann Plast Surg, Clin Plast Surg, J Neurosurg etc) and is an author of book chapters and textbooks (Appears to be co-author of section "Current Management of Orbital Fractures" in textbook "Operative Techniques in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery", Author of medical textbook “Nursing Care of the Plastic Surgery Patient” (374 pages) and author of reference text (potentially textbook) “Cosmetic Facial Surgery” (609) pages (See Google Books search for “Donald Wood-Smith”) Beyond book, which is cited 54x, subject’s articles are also cited multiple times, e.g.: 48x (Orbital blowout fractures), 32x (On hemifacial microsomia), 24x (Craniosynostosis) and others 22x, 23x, 21x etc according to google scholar (at least another 5-10 with greater than 10 citations). Given the issues described earlier regarding difficulty of doing Medline searches with the subject’s hyphenated name, suspect that there are more out there. As such, seems to satisfy criteria 3 based on level of citations, published work and authorship of textbook.Polk52 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 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. Hut 8.5 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bessler[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=mb28&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although Medline finds only two papers that relate to him, it seems to represent poor coverage of his specialty as there are many more on his CV.[46] Google Scholar finds papers with 97 and 74 citations, and another 5 or so with over 20 citations; there's also a patent with 66 citations. There's some press coverage of a recent novel technique, which seems to suggest a degree of controversy: eg see New York Times [47]. Borderline, but probably meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find at least 12 in medline [48], not 2.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record satifies criterion 3 of WP:PROF, the pioneering techniques satisfy criterion 5, and the press coverage satisfies general WP:N and WP:BIO criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the press coverage alone--without even having to evaluate much further. The nom should have been able to do the same. the nom has been fighting spam so successfully and heroically--more power to him-- that there might be an understandable tendency to forget that sometime PR can be about someone notable.DGG (talk) 16:46, 31 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, no policy or guideline-based reasoning given for deletion, therefore, it is kept by default. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Korean War veterans who are recipients of the Bronze Star[edit]

A puzzling page, given that this much effort has been put into an article for the fourth highest award for valor (and even then not always awarded for valor, but meritorious service), when there isn't a similar page for higher awards. But more than that, there is a category for this award already. All this does is include a picture. This page has also become a magnet for people adding the names of relatives, friends, etc.Nobunaga24 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Soldiers with much more prestigious awards have gotten deleted. Somebody has way too much time on their hands. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A category might serve the purpose better here Corpx (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with all above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; and guideline notice: no policy-based or guideline-based reasons have been given for deletion. The only reasons given above are of the "I don't like it because..." variety. The list is blue-linked, which makes it useful for navigating Wikipedia, one of the guideline-based purposes of lists. See: Wikipedia:Lists#Purpose of lists. No guideline gives categories priority over lists for this or any other purpose. Besides, lists have the potential to be enhanced in ways that categories cannot, but not if they get deleted in the meantime. The pictures are one such enhancement, and more enhancements may be added in time. Please don't nominate lists for deletion unless they are violating a policy or guideline, or are causing a problem. This one doesn't. The Transhumanist 06:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is still a low level award, and receiving one is not a notable achievement in and of itself. It's an arbitrary way to list people - Korean War vets and bronze star recipients - why not a list of people signed to Sony Records who have been received a Grammy Award, or World War II vets who also fought in Korea. There is no rationale for this article other than somebody thinks Korean War vets who received bronze stars should be listed.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not arbitrary in the context that it's a piece of a whole - it's part of "List of bronze star recipients". There's no requirement to build the whole list all at once, or from the top down. If you are building a robot, you can start with just the left pinky. The list supports the article Bronze Star Medal, and provides examples of recipients. The Transhumanist 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR - this is a meaningless classification of Korean War veterans who have at some stage in their lives earned the Bronze Star. It's not even a list of recipients of the Bronze Star during the Korean War. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Frankly, this is a bizarre nomination. "We don't have X yet, so x can't exist." "Not all of these award recipients deserved the award" "A category exists" "This article invites collabaration". And the first few delete !votes are cause for concern, including an extraordinary bad faith comment "somebody has too much time on their hands", and a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT's, and "X got deleted, so x must too". I suggest close this bizarre mess and everyone go read the policies and come back when a good faith nomination and relevant participation can be provided. In fact, for the first time ever, I !vote No consensus, which isn't even one of the allowed !votes, but it seems appropriate here, so I'll make it anyway. JERRY ^talk _contribs 12:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad faith nomination, and to be honest, I find that a bit offensive. Nick Dowling's comment and the link he provides are a good summary of what is wrong with this list. It's a combination of two loosely related topics. Go back and read the link Nick provided. I don't think there should be a list of any award by war & medal, with the exception of the MoH. I was merely commenting on the fact that it was a puzzling award to make a list of this sort out of given that there are higher awards for valor and heroism than this (four to be percise - MoH, DSC/Air Force Cross/Navy Cross, Silver Star and Soldier's Medal/Airman's Medal/Navy and Marine Corps Medal).--Nobunaga24 (talk) 13:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not impune the motives of your nomination, just your rationale. I assume that you are trying to cleanup wikipedia and rid it of those things that you think make it's quality lower than it could otherwise be, and I salute that intention. But the statements made by Clarityfiend leave no room for the assumption of good faith. My phraseology "the first few delete !votes" was not some accidental or arbitrary writing, it was specifically stated to exclude Nick Dowling's comment from what I was talking about; in other words my comments only applied to the first 3 delete !votes and the nomination. Now as for Nick's comment, a very valid one, it is one of content, not a criteria for deletion. Some editorial discretion should occur elsewhere to make this a non-arbitrary cross-section of attributes. For example, inclusion criteria could be that the person had to receive a bronze star, and had to have received it for service in the Korean Conflict. Then renaming it (also does not require an AfD) to "List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star Recipients" would probably solve the dilemma described by Nick. This AFD is unnecessary, and as nominator you should repeal it, IMHO. JERRY ^talk _contribs 14:05, 5 February 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. although a shaky start on COI grounds, independent notability established cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cara[edit]

COI biography apparently authored by subject's media relations consultant. (Author's only other bio edit was a speedily-deleted article, Neil S. Kaye, admittedly written on a client's behalf; this article follows the same pattern.) The article is completely unsourced and does not demonstrate notability in any single field. While it mentions a number of mildly interesting activities, they do not collectively meet WP:BIO. The only sourced incident is a prank regarding auto registrations that received some trivial news coverage. Author has also inserted subject's name into at least two other articles. Delete. MCB (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by myself and a group of others that respect Jim from what he has brought to the national music retail industry. He is the PT Barnum in the music instrument industry and the Zelig behind the success of so many MIDI initiatives that he has many substantial awards. His recent radio program is the first music / talk program that integrates musical industry equipment (musical instruments) information into how those songs were recorded, and also answers questions about those instruments.

We thought that inserting names into other subjects that he is affiliated with was protocol. Once we showed Jim's article to another notable (DR Kaye)in our area, he encouraged us to do the same for him.

Jim is exceptionally notable in the Musical Instrument industry and secondly Motorcycle Drag Racing industry, where he was seen weekly as the expert for AMA on ESPN and The Outdoor Channel. Yes we know him, and respect him. How shall we create and maintain a good relationship with you. He is incredibly sourced in the Motorcycle Drag Racing industry, but much more successful in the MI world.

We will delete the Dr. Kaye article and abide by your rules. Please don't hurt Mr. Cara for any of this. He deserves a place in this, and we will better address his credibility with references. Newssource19805 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources for Musical Instrument Industry http://www.caramedia.com/resume/MI_resume.pdf pages 17-26 has a bunch of reprints Much of it was in print media. How can we REF this? Shall we ask him to send us things like magazine and newspaper names and print dates then http://www.pgmusic.com/review10.htm
http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq96.htm - here he is listed with the most important in the industry in 1996
http://www.pgmusic.com/review3.htm

Here are sources for Drag Racing http://www.amadirectlink.com/amrace/SponsorshipGuide.asp
http://www.dragbike.com/news/02-03/020503a.htm
http://www.usridernews.com/past_issues/2005PastIssues/Apr05/National%2065-76.pdf
http://www.motorcyclingwa.org.au/files/Sponsorship%20money%20all%20around.pdf
Newssource19805 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have looked through all this information and while the subject has certainly done a lot of different things, none of them really seem to be terribly noteworthy. At best the subject seems to be associated with notable people, but that's in itself isn't a claim to notability. Trusilver 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is Jim Cara, and I don't know where to start here, but I'll just say a few wods and wait for your response. I read all that someone had written here and saw they neglected to write about what originally brought me to the forefront of Musical Industry attention. I was the first person to use modem-modem communications, in the pre-internet days in order to allow long distance composing and collaboration by musicians using MIDI. This was the kickstart to what turned into a colorful and Zelig / Forest Gump style career. I would hate for a overdose of fat to ruin what my contribution to the music industry really was.

How can I assure that this article is correctly edited and put to the best use of Wikipedia. Most of my things were Pre-Internet and not much digital is available for reference.. 76.99.174.254 (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off-line resources is acceptable as sourcing. As long as the sources are publicly available. Ie. sources that you can expect to find at the local library is OK. Taemyr (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article began with a promotional flavor, but the biography that underlies it is notable and merits inclusion. I've made a first pass at tightening--maybe too much tightening--someone with more knowledge of early MIDI should have a look.--Wageless (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delaware Governor's Achievement Award recipient. That alone makes him worthy of note, or notable. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:56 2008 February 4 (UTC)

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

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

The result was The result of the AfD wasDelete. Trusilver 07:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Only I Could Turn Off the Sun, I Would Show You a Brighter Day[edit]

EP by little known rapper at one point linked to Eminem. Only 100 copies pressed. The article also mentions "This album has not leaked" which, as far as I can understand means: nobody but this guy's friend and family remembers it ever existed. Pichpich (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "only 100 copies pressed." The article actually argues against the subject's notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this is notable, than so is the band I was in in high school that no one but me and the other 2 guys that were in it remember...Beeblbrox (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Pistachio, it definitely isn't notable. No album image, no sources, and the fact it's only sold 100 copies means the article shoots itself in the foot. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lord Pistachio. How exactly is 100 copies notable? I would understand if this was a limited edition EP by a very notable group, but for NN group, it isn't. Never verifys notability Doc Strange (talk) 18:53, 29 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. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SRV guitars[edit]

Unencyclopedic list consisting of, er... one guitar. No sources, essentially fan folklore. Any encyclopedic information belongs in the Stevie Ray Vaughn article. Delete. MCB (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY; this could (very easily) be included in the Stevie Ray Vaughn article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stevie Ray Vaughn as too minor a topic for its own article. All encyclopedic relevance of this topic is related directly to SRV, so it belongs in his article. It hasn't gotten such broad coverage on its own as, say, B.B. King's "Lucille". Probably a bit should be trimmed and most should be merged back. Barno (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This would be way to much to add to the SRV article. Also, these guitars are also very popular. Izzy007 Talk 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "These guitars"? It's a list of one guitar. And the whole article is only a couple of paragraphs. --MCB (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fixed. It now includes all the guitars Izzy007 Talk 23:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. SRV was a famous guitarist and the guitars were a highly notable part of his fame. the SRV article is 27kb and would grow if it was polished and worked up to FAC. I feel the subject matter is possibly better where it is. I am not too opposed to a merge but suspect it would be split off later anyway. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Hold the fort on a close, I'll post a note somewhere some folk who may be able to input some authoritative opinion or refs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge into Stevie Ray Vaughn. Not notable enough for its own article (as far as I know, there's no B. B. King guitars or Elvis guitars.) However, will make a great addition to SRV's own article. Also, if kept, rename to something like "Guitars of Stevie Ray Vaughn" or "Stevie Ray Vaughn's Guitars" --Evan Seeds (talk)(contrib.) 22:01, 5 February 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, with no prejudice to continuing the debate over "introduction to" articles elsewhere. This is an early close, but a fair amount of debate has already taken place. It is clear that WP:AFD is the wrong venue for discussing "introduction to" articles in general. Suggest opening a request for comments on the issue, or continuing at one of the discussion threads pointed out towards the end of this AfD. The issues specific to this article (such as proposals to merge with Evolution) should be addressed on the talk page for the article, especially in light of the recently attained featured article status. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to evolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Introduction to Evolution should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well sourced, and informative. If it could be pruned so that it isn't redundant and just repeating parts of the main article, I think it would be a good keep. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe The article has some inaccuracies, serious inaccuracies that need fixed. The editors are having a hard time working with anyone outside of a small group who have been working on the article, but don't seem to be able to find major inaccuracies themselves. If the inaccuracies can't even be found, much less removed, it should be deleted. However, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination suggested by User:Filll[49][50][51] and acted upon by User:Wassupwestcoast as Filll is currently too busy accusing me of being a sock puppet of a creationist and playing games on my talk page.[52][53][54] A general introduction to evolution can be accurate without going to the level of the main article, and this article will be a good example of this, if its inaccuracies are removed. But to suggest that science can only be explained to a lay audience by being inaccurate is false. It can be accurate and an approachable article. If this article is too sophisticated to be an introduction, let User:Wassupwestcoast provide the diffs that prove it. Otherwise I agree completely with Master of Puppets that it would be a good keep. --Amaltheus (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with this characterization, and would ask that we try to limit the personal attacks. I have stopped giving input on this article since my suggestions and input were upsetting to Amaltheus, causing him to engage in angry venting and cursing, and I endeavored to avoid upsetting him since we have to WP:AGF. Amaltheus effectively WP:OWNs this article now, because most of the others involved have left at his prompting and encouragement. However, tell me why there needs to be an introductory article at all? After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a schoolbook for children, some would claim. And it just repeats needlessly the material in evolution, some would say. I also note that the only person who seems to be having a hard time working with others is Amaltheus, but that is fine, let him have it and defend it and improve it, if he can, since several others have stopped working on the article since he took "ownership". Amaltheus makes a lot of allusions to severe inaccuracies, but where has he stated them clearly and fixed them, in a manner appropriate for someone who is at a 12 or 13 year old level of understanding and sophistication? I also did not nominate this article for AfD, but only wanted to hear arguments on both sides, as I asked for on the article talk page. Amaltheus and others have contributed to making me question whether this article needs to go, particularly since Amaltheus now says it contains grievously terrible errors which no one can find and Amaltheus has been unable to correct apparently, in spite of a considerable time investment. So why not? A lot of what Amaltheus appears to be alleging is contradictory, or makes no sense, at least in my opinion. Amaltheus should demonstrate these grievous uncorrectable faults in the article to me or some subject matter expert or correct his previous statements which might be in error, since he might have suffered a minor mental lacuna and misspoke, which of course I will not hold against him. And thanks to some unfortunate badgering and intemperant behavior, Wassupwestcoast has left Wikipedia as have others, and so will unfortunately be unavailable to engage with Amaltheus in further tendentious battles. Sorry. Amaltheus will have to identify the unfindable fatal flaws in the article himself and fix them. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way or is perceived as uncivil since it is not meant to be taken that way.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even a single diff to support what you're saying? --Amaltheus (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Evolution is a featured article that should represent the best of Wikipedia, this article is redundant to it. Guest9999 (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Because I do not think we need an "Introduction to _________" for every topic on wikipedia. Corpx (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺}. There is nothing that would prevent editors from trimming and pruning away the redundancies. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are thousands of Introduction to X articles on WIkipedia[55] and they serve a useful purpose that is not content forking. This seems like an editing dispute taken to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the difficulties with writing an encyclopaedia for all is finding the right level of information for scientific subjects, something that works both for readers without science education and for experts in the field. The Evolution article can be too technical for some readers, and I think that a more basic introduction has its place here, to complement the main article. Maybe this article can be pruned somewhat.Sjö (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replicates the content at evolution which is both an FA and not terribly long. Given the arguments over this topic, why create an unnessesary article to maintain against POV pushers? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hatlink alone explains why, this is nothing more than a simplified version of another article. It's like one of those For Dummies book, this being "Evolution for Dummies". TJ Spyke 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a really difficult AfD debate. Content forking issue raised by nom can be a basis for deletion if it is WP:POVFORK. I found the article neutral, but is it really necessary to have Introduction to X for an article X? A spin-out article can be created if we need more detailed article from the main article for the sake of readability (see WP:CFORK). But in this case, it is the other way around; the article is a more general content than the main Evolution article. I'm afraid that we have two articles with the same content at the end. Evolution is FA, so I'd suggest to merge this article to Evolution article. I think it's better to make a "History of evolution science" article, for instances, rather than an introduction to evolution. Dekisugi (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – see History of evolutionary thought. .. dave souza, talk 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. Then please disregard my last comment. However, I still opt for merge. Dekisugi (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Introduction to general relativity, featured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as a non-expert, I've found this a helpful and useful article, and think it's improving despite the obvious difficulty of achieving the required accessibility and accuracy. Many thanks to Wassupwestcoast for sterling efforts to get this article right for purpose. .. dave souza, talk 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main article is sufficiently dense that an introductory article contributes towards a better understanding for those less scientifically educated users. While we certainly don't need an introductory article for every topic in Wikipedia, I believe this is one of those select few that truly deserve it, given the absurd weight this topic is given in the press, scientific community, and the American government. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Evolution is too complicated, the information there should be put into new articles. Articles on Wikipedia should give a comprehensible overview of the subject. If the page is then getting long, the detailed stuff should be put on a subpage. This page cannot but duplicate content on Evolution -- its role is precisely the same. If there's a problem with Evolution, sort that page out. Don't fork it. Delete. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Evolution. We have a big problem, if Wikipedia needs two articles on the same topic, one for the clever reader and one for the stupid. Let's make a disambiguation page: [[evolution]] andfor the idiots [[evolution on wikistupid]]. Evolution is a featured article. How can it be, if it needs an explanation article to be understood by a large number of readers. This (Introduction to evolution) is a good article, but if it's content is necessary to understand the evolution article, then it has to be within this evolution article. If it is not necessary, then we do not need such a duplicate or we all should begin to think about what Wikipedia should be.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article is excellent but the language is difficult for some readers. This is a very good introduction, (it still needs a little work) and there are many, many articles of a much lower standard. Keep and improve.--GrahamColm ^Talk 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is an unnecessary content fork that cannot help but duplicate the information in Evolution. If a simplified version of the article is needed, it should appear on the Simple English wikipedia, not here. (If delete fails, I would also support a merge to Evolution.) Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evolution is a very complex topic. An introduction (not for "stupid people", but for a non-expert audience) is a very valuable resource. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a well-established Wikipedia precedent for introductory articles, such as Introduction to general relativity (a featured article), and this topic also deserves such treatment. Not for dummies, but for non-specialists. Looking at the recent events from the outside, it seems that the genesis of this AfD lies in frustration caused by attempts to get the article to FA status, compounded by the behaviour of one editor who seems (while contributing some good suggestions on content) to have embarked on a crusade to get as many backs up as possible. I understand the frustration this has caused, but I do not think this is a valid resaon to nominate a potentially useful article for deletion. GNUSMAS : TALK 16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that nobody wanted to create an article for stupids or dummies. I even do not have a problem with this special article, because I have enough knowledge about evolution to understand the article "for specialists" without problems. Then I searched for other Introduction articles. I found Special relativity. I have to confess, it would take some work for me to understand every detail of the article. Then I read the introduction article, which I understood without problems. Everything ok now? No! I did not feel like a non-specialist, I felt like a dummy, because the editors of the special relativity article did not even try to make me (and I hope many others) understand their article. They felt, there was no need to need to try to do so. For people like me, it was enough, to show some basics. This should not be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," but it also should be the encyclopedia that "anyone can read".--Thw1309 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the redundant nature of this article. If delete fails, then merge with evolution. Yamakiri ^T_C § 01-28-2008 • 16:12:04
Keep A really good introduction to this complex topic would be to the significant enhancement of the Project. Editors' POV that it's not currently successful does not mean it should be deleted, merely edited. If it's becoming a fork of Evolution it needs to be changed. Perhaps if some of the contributors were less combative at the article talk page, user talk pages and in edit summaries there would be more community collaboration on the topic from those without an axe to grind. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in ots simple form. Clearly if users keep adding more complex content it will be a mirror of evolution. The goal is simpler than evolution, an article that has had many criticisms for being too complicated. This is a natural pairing and should be kept as a complement to evolution not a competitor. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and simplify. If there is a constant pressure for an article to include the more technical aspects of evolutionary theory, then we put that material in the main evolution article. However, a non-specialist introduction is useful for those with no background in the subject. Since Wikipedia isn't paper, and we have no space restrictions, I see no problem with having two different articles that explain the same subject, but to two different audiences. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and, if needed, simplify. The evolution article is actually quite complex. Since evolution is a foundational concept for biology and many other scientific subdisciplines, we need to do everything possible to ensure that our readers can understand the material we present on it. Since we have no space restrictions, there is no reason not to present a more specialized and a less specialized version of the material. See Markus Poessel's excellent essay on this topic: Wikipedia:Many things to many people. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge there is no reason to annihilate a wrothy source of information. While i do support the destruction of thearticle Introduction of Evolution it is because i want the content to be kept and mreged with the actual Evolution article. Smith Jones (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't find this debate difficult at all: the arguments for deletion are flimsy at best, and entirely ungrounded in policy. Markus's excellent essay eloquently makes a point that I express as follows: Wikipedia is more like a nested family of encyclopedias than a single monolithic encyclopedia. It has to cater for a non-expert reader as well as specialists. It is great when this can be done without "Introduction to..." articles, but in some cases, when the topic is vast and complex, like general relativity or evolution, "Introduction to..." articles are not only inevitable and desirable, they are essential. If this one is getting too complicated, simplify it. If it needs to be defended against POV pushers, defend it. Neither of these issues hold any water whatsoever as arguments for deleting the article, and the case for keeping it is overwhelmingly strong. Geometry guy 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be permitted to quote from Markus' article:
for the average reader, there will be the base article Roman Army; for the interested student or those with special interests who want to dig deeper, there will be the more detailed articles

No-one disagrees that we should have a simple overview and a more advanced study. However, the introduction should be at Evolution, and the details should be elsewhere. I don't think anyone's arguing for the deletion of this page's contents. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates how well thought-out and balanced Markus's essay is. Indeed, the approach you outline is the best plan for almost every topic. However, for vast and complex topics, it just doesn't work. Having a simple overview as the base article fails the "comprehensiveness" criterion for Wikipedia articles. Even with every section a summary of a separate main article, a comprehensive article rapidly becomes indigestible. It is only for topics like this that one needs an "Introduction to..." article. Geometry guy 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what you've said, that means these Introduction to ... articles can never be comprehensive. This leaves us open to constant conflicts in which one group of editors wants to include information for completeness of the topic and another group is specifically excluding that information based on their own standards of what "complete" is for that article. To me, that is the epitome of a content fork; two different groups using different standards to decide which information about a single topic goes in "their" article. That does not seem good for the project, and seems even less beneficial for the reader, who may or may not see a complete picture. Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect: the meaning of "comprehensiveness" is heavily influenced by the title. The question "Is this article comprehensive as an introduction to evolution?" is entirely different from the question "Is this a comprehensive article on evolution?"

I fail to see the two different groups issue either: I expect editors seriously involved with Evolution also watchlist Introduction to evolution. I also fail to see any policy which says that this is a bad idea.

In particular Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible has long supported "Introduction to..." articles in some cases. This has been challenged in the last week, but the defense of the concept on the talk page is robust, and may lead to better guidance on when "Introduction to..." articles are appropriate. Well, as for this AfD, here's when. Geometry guy 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content and POV-forking guideline says content forks are not acceptable. That gives us one guideline which allows these types of articles and another which does not. It might be important to note also that this article in particular has been nominated for deletion as a result of differing opinions over how much detail should be included in this article vs in Evolution and what types of sources are appropriate for it vs Evolution. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here I disagree. I believe this is on AFD for WP:POINT reasons. A set of editor who have put in a massive amount of work into the article to try to reach FA status then find that there are still critics. They throw up hands in the air and say screw it send it to AfD. But this frustration does not remove the need for this article or even prove it should not exist. If you look at the talk page for the article and the FAC I think it is clear that the discussion is resolving to a shorter and less comprehensive article. To those that say that means it should not even be on wikipedia, I say read the title. it's "Introduction" to evolition not evolution. Think about how wikipedia will progress over the next few years. Most articles will become even more comprhensive and be at a higher level. To say there is no room for introductory articles is going to mean one core audience, HS kids, will be served less well. This does not make sense for an encyclopedia that should be able to serve many different needs. Why are there so many disagreements in writing this basic article? The answer is it is much harder to write for a general audience. Don't make it even harder and more demoralising but trying to delete these articles. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be disingenuous -- no-one but no-one is arguing that there shouldn't be introductory articles on Wikipedia. The only argument is that the basic article should be at Evolution, as I say below. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disingenuous? My impression was there is a strong view that two articles should not exist. That was the point I am addressing and the point you seem to be affirming? David D. (Talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the article Evolution if it is not an introduction? If I can make an analogy, the article Cricket does not claim to say everything about its subject. It serves as an overview and there are many articles that are linked from it that go into the subject in more depth. The question of why the article Evolution should not be the main article has not been addressed, and it should be. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline states "A content fork is usually an 'unintentional' creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines" this is certainly not an unintentional duplication of content or a POV fork, so that guideline really does not apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to be precise about our analysis of the words of policy, may I suggest you read the first sentence you quoted? More specifically, the word "usually". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not all content forks are unintentional - they are often POV forks. However, an article that follows the NPOV policy and has a different focus than any other articles on Wikipedia can't be classified as a content fork and is not really covered by that guideline. I'd bear in mind as well that guidelines are only supposed to give general guidance, and editors are advised that there will be exceptions. This class of article is a very good example of such an exception. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously going to argue this isn't a fork? Are you then going to argue that it isn't a fork based on content? See, among other things, Wikipedia:Summary style -- which should apply to the article Evolution. The current situation has two top-level pages on the subject. That is forking. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that the contents and intentions of this article are not covered by that guideline, which is aimed at discouraging POV forks. Evolution already summarises a large number of daughter articles, most of which are much more technical than the top-level article. Rather than trying to rigidly apply a guideline like a policy, I think we should consider if this article is useful and if it fills a niche - which I believe it does. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to ignore guidelines anyway, so I won't debate that point. Indeed, I can't really be bothered to debate the whole matter, as it's quite clearly a fait accompli that such pages exist, even though they do number just nine. I do, however, deplore it as elitist, unattractive, patronising and against the ethos of Wikipedia. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. The discussion in response to my comment wholly supports my argument that the case for deletion is flimsy. While debating the meaning of the three sentence introduction WP:POVFORK, it might be worth reading the rest of the guideline, which has one section devoted to POV-forks, and the rest of the guideline discussing what content forks are not (while explaining how they can become POV forks sometimes). The whole guideline is geared towards the undesirability of POV-forks. This article is not a POV-fork, and, as TimVickers explains quite clearly, WP:POVFORK is irrelevant to the deletion discussion here. Geometry guy 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very accessible article for readers that aren't knowledgeable about the subject, and accomplishes something that couldn't be done with the more complex evolution article. The approach of having an "introduction to..." article should be used for other topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm quite confused by the history of this article. I could not tell from the history or talk page archives, is this a WP:SIZE fork from evolution? It doesn't appear to be. The editors of the evolution article appear to be largely unaware of this article, as there is no concensous on what belongs in one and what belongs in the other. Agreed, it's not a bad article. It's well sourced, and appears to match my HS bio cirriculum, but that doesn't mean it's needed here. Perhaps it belongs transwikied to Wikibooks or Wikiversity? I'd have to do a lot more research to form a firmer opinion; It's sort of a mess. -Verdatum (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully delete. Insofar as the article summarizes things better than (the already excellent) Evolution, copy over to that. If History of evolutionary thought (which needs better rationalization) can handle it, copy over there. Consider a rename that eliminates the redundancy: History of evolutionary thought (post-1859) fits. A Glossary and summary of Evolution is also a useful idea. That this page can be "pruned" to eliminate redundancy is nonsense. The lead of one of the two will mention On the Origin of Species and the other won't? Silly. By its nature, this page is redundant. Marskell (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that Evolution is excellent only serves as motivation to make Introduction to evolution better, not to delete it, however carefully. Moving the introductory material to erudite articles on the history of evolutionary thought does not serve the general reader. "By its nature, this page is redundant"? Basically, this is a main article for the introductory role of the lead to evolution: see my comments below. Geometry guy 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire site is supposed to serve the general reader. To justify this article, you need to show that the erudition of Evolution is such that it fails to serve the general reader. I don't see that it does. Quite the contrary. Marskell (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be a well-established ~~policy~~ precedent on Wikipedia of creating "Introduction to..." articles for very technical subjects, as evidenced by the contents of Category:Introductions and the fact that templates exist for that very purpose. Evolution could (IMO) benefit from such an introduction. If the current article has a flaw then it's that it doesn't go far enough in simplifying the subject (the nominator said something similar), but that's no reason to delete where it could be improved. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Policy" is a specific term on WP. They are few and specifically enumerated. Beneath that in weight are guidelines that have been explicitly documented. What you are describing is merely a trend or a presumed concensus. It approaches a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. -Verdatum (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - True. I should have said precedent. Still, I think the argument is valid in this case. I interpret WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as applying mainly to comparisons between article subjects (there's an article on A therefore there should be an article on related subject B, even if B doesn't meet any of the criterion for inclusion). I think it can reasonably be argued that precedent ought to be taken into account in the case of types of articles. For me it's an issue of consistency of style - this is just the way things are/have been done. As for consensus - well, that's the point of these discussions, so let's wait and see. Cosmo0 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have argued for over a year that we need to have introductory articles for technical subjects on Wikipedia. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica, the supposed "gold standard" of encyclopedias, has 6 levels for people with various levels of background, education and understanding, so why can Wikipedia not have 2 levels (or 3 if you count Simple Wikipedia? Take a look at the introductions we have collected so far at [56] as part of Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Over a year ago, I noticed that the evolution article was having trouble being all things to all people, with some wanting it to be more sophisticated and some wanting it more accessible. So taking a page from the Wikipedia project Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, I thought we might have an introductory article here on evolution. However, introductory articles are necessarily vague. They cannot go into the complicated biochemistry of DNA, or the exact historical sequence of where the idea of natural selection came from, or all kinds of details and nuances and exceptions and counterexamples. This approach and article came under unceasing attack during the FA, until I started to wonder, is it true? Should any or some of our articles even be accessible? Do we care? And if they do not need to be accessible but need to have every possible detail precisely correct and explored at length, then all articles will be at the same graduate school level, or higher. Unfortunately, this FA has been fraught with terrible fighting over this issue and several people have left the project and/or the article as a result. I have watched in dismay from the sidelines as the situation has gone from bad to worse. I seek community input on this matter, since it seems that there is widespread disagreement about this, and even animosity to accessibility. What does the community think? Should we follow the path in Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible and the path that Encyclopedia Britannica is on? Or should we press to make all articles as technical and detailed as possible, without attention to the interests or needs of the readership? --Filll (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I truly believe that a carefully written lead, possibly an "overview" section in the article, and a careful application of summary style could solve the accessibility issues. In a more complex topic like evolution it would likely take quite a bit of work to get the language and the proper hierarchy of child articles created, but I (and apparently others) think that is a better solution than providing two separate articles on the same topic. Karanacs (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why is a graduate school textbook on Biology any different than a high school textbook on Biology or a grade school text on Biology? And if it is possible to have one article be all things to all people, do you not think that Encyclopedia Britannica, working with paid staff over several centuries would have done it already? What makes you think unpaid volunteer staff can do it in a couple of weeks then?--Filll (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Readers' digest comment. (See Markus's essay for details.) WP:LEAD is one of our coolest guidelines. It says that the lead should be introduce the topic and provide a concise summary of the rest of the article. It's cool because it tells us how to write the lead (as a summary of the rest of the article) and also how to write the rest of the article (so that the lead really does summarize the topic). However, for some articles, it can be extremely difficult to reconcile the two roles of the lead: overview/summary and introduction. If the lead were any other section of the article, the solution would be simple: fork to a "main article", and summarize. An "Introduction to..." is simply a "main article" for the lead. The rest of the article expands on the lead's overview role, whereas the "Introducion to..." article expands on the lead's introductory role. In most cases this separation is not necessary. In some cases, it is. This is such a case. Geometry guy 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Interwiki as redundant to Evolution, WP:LEAD and Simple wiki. This AFD could/should be extended to the other 'intro to' topics, or a policy drafted to support 'intro articles'. As is, it's a duplication of content which doubles the need to be protected from vandals, updated as new information arises and compared to ensure they're comparable. WLU (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that's the second misunderstanding of/insult to the Simple English Wikipedia in this thread, so it needs to be addressed. The "simple" Wikipedia does not exist to provide simple explanations of complex topics for stupid people. It exists to provide a Wikipedia which uses a simpler subset of the English language so it is accessibile to a wider readership who are not as fluent in English for a variety of reasons. The Simple English Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this AfD, and I expect many "Simple English Wikipedia" readers would be deeply offended by the two comments that have been made here about this issue. I trust they will both be clarified, struck, or refactored. Geometry guy 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's debatable or multi-use. From Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia#What Simple English Wikipedia is: In general, Simple English articles are simplifications of the most important points in existing articles, rather than being new. This is likely to make Simple English articles a good way to introduce those written in complex English; if someone has trouble understanding a concept in complex English they can "fall back" to the Simple version. If this is not what Simple wiki is for, the page should be modified. As is, it looks like a combination of simple language and simple concepts. By my reading of the page, it's not a matter of simple language for stupid people, it's simple language for an introduction. Perhaps all the 'introduction to' pages could be transwikied. WLU (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about selective quotation! The rest of the section (i.e., the beginning of the section!) reads "The Simple English Wikipedia uses fewer words and simpler grammar than the original English Wikipedia. It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different from the typical Wikipedia reader with different needs, for example, people for whom English is not a first language, students, children, translators, and people with learning disabilities or those who read below a proficient level." I doubt its purpose could be made more plain. It has nothing to do with this deletion debate. Geometry guy 09:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for general information to clarify the above: Simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia probably provides a better description of itself than Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. Geometry guy 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps I have a bias as someone who has taught the subject. (yes, I taught biology before I became a librarian) The bias is that presentation at many levels is sometimes necessary. On complicated subjects just as one can not present a lecture appropriate at all levels of a general audience, one can not necessarily write an understandable yet interesting article. In a good textbook or a course, there is generally at least some introduction to a complicated subject before the main presentation, so people can get up to steam. Moving things to simple english wiki is like moving all introductory course back to high school. People of all levels of sophistication come here, and we should meet their needs. This won;'t be necessary on every subject, but on some of the major subjects,where there are enough editors, and enough material, it's appropriate. This is one. I've frequently made mention of it in explaining the good points about Wikipedia--how a general encyclopedia is possible. If it needs some adjustment from time to time, most articles do. If there is some OWNership, then perhaps some others should take a closer look. I admit I never have worked on it, & perhaps I should. DGG (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a balance between accuracy and clarity that must be taken into account. This balance has to be adjusted for the audience that the presentation is intended. I am a great supporter of Introduction to... articles in these cases, because different people require different levels of detail on such broad and complex topics.GoEThe (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of the topics that can benefit from having an introductory article. It is not a POV fork but an "audience fork", which is not against the forking guidelines. --Itub (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You may call me an idiot or a dummy, but I often find myself wishing for an Introduction to Foo that is qualitatively different from Foo. I make an attempt to read Foo; I cannot understand its basic concepts and despair. There seems nothing else in the encyclopedia designed for my particular entry-level competence. It seems my education is incomplete. There are many fields to which I have never been introduced and many others which have advanced well beyond my original schooling. I suspect, however, that I am not alone in this class; in fact I know many people who are well educated, competent enough to earn money with some topics that they know, but remain humbled by the vast array of topics falling outside their ken. The class of articles to which Introduction to Foo belongs is not just for school children, idiots, or dummies; it is for anyone who finds him or herself so comprehensively uneducated in a particular topic that the absolute essentials must be made a part of the article's expository.

Such an article is not a content fork. Anyone who has had to teach the basics of anything soon struggles with how it is they know what they know, and what might be the best way to convey that essential kernel to the uninitiated. Quite often one chooses a bootstrapping strategy; seize upon a series of heuristic models, the first of which being so primitive as to make anyone at all knowledgeable in the topic to blanch in horror – or laugh out loud. My first introduction to the concept of an atom entailed tiny clusters of blue and red spheres around which revolved even tinier yellow spheres. Laughable? yes, now, but at the time it got me off the dime. By analogy, “Introduction to Foo” would have a structure and approach to the topic qualitatively different from its more technically refined counterpart – it would not be “Foo” with all the hard words taken out.

Oh? Really? Ah. I've just been informed that this is the AFD for the Introduction to Evolution, not Foo. Ah me. But no matter, for the one or two of you who have seen me this far, the issue really transcends this article; the issue really entails how this project is to design systems of articles that convey facets of large and complex topics to readers at different levels of competence, including the basic level, at which all of us are with respect to at least one topic (anyone here arrogant enough to claim otherwise?). To my mind, that design necessarily requires introductory articles, and they will be the very hardest articles to write correctly, given the very few assumptions that editors can make about what readers know. Some of you, I trust, will opine that this is an encyclopedia and that introductory articles are out of its scope. Sorry. For better and for worse, we've set ourselves up to be one of the first sites that much of the English speaking Internet visits for information, oft-times basic, introductory information. I do not think we can reach for the “Not my job” disclaimer any longer. Nor does merging the "Introduction" to the central article make sense; writing an article that is simultaneously useful to readers at different levels of competence is even harder to write than introductory articles aimed at a basic level of competence. Possibly Richard P. Feynman could write at simultaneous levels; I can think of no other writer as skilled at expository. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, forgawdssakes. It's a FA!!! Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Diff. I was just about to make that point. It was promoted about an hour and a half ago: here's the diff. Is this the first time an article has been promoted to FA during an AfD, I wonder? Somewhat ironic anyway. Congratulations to those involved! Geometry guy 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Dhartung. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And at all costs resist the tendency for it to become ever more sophisticated and complicated. This is an introductiory article. It does not need to include every detail. Edges are going to get blurred, details are going to get skated over. Over-fastidious accuracy must be sacrificed, if necessary, in the interests of accessibility. This needs to be established as a WP guideline for this sort of article. Snalwibma (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone doubted that I would vote this way, they do not know how hard I fought for this article for over a year. But I might as well add my voice to the chorus. I thank everyone for their support. And I agree wholeheartedly with Snalwibma and others here, in that people have to realize that this is an introduction and therefore it is going to be missing details and sophistication and information and be vague or oversimplified in spots. Sorry, but that is just how it is.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep further up this page, one reads that 'we should not have "Introduction to..." articles on every topic within Wikipedia'. We do not have "Introduction to..." articles on every topic within Wikipedia, merely on this one and an absolute handful of others. This sort of article is invaluable for introducing complex subjects on topics of critical importance to an encyclopaedia, and evolution is a complex subject on a topic of critical importance to an encyclopaedia. — BillC ^talk 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Arbitrary comment - since it looks like it's probably going to be a keep, then what about drafting some guidelines on intro articles so this doesn't come up again? If there's enough intro articles (by my count there's 9 intro articles tagged as such) then why not make it official and set up something people can work with if they'd like to draft something? All my objections would go away were there something official saying this is warranted. WLU (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be worthwhile. A discussion has been started at WT:CFORK, which may take off once this AfD is closed. In the light of my earlier comment, I might start a thread at WT:LEAD. Geometry guy 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea. We need to make this clearer to people and continue to publicize this so the community understands it.--Filll (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_accessible#.22Introduction.22_articles. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article[edit]

Since this is now a featured article, the AfD template looks a little odd. Time to wrap this up? .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if I were uninvolved, I would do it myself. It is starting to get embarrassing... Geometry guy 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the circumstances surrounding this, embarrassing is how I like it and how I want it.--Filll (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record - I promoted it to FA status because I believe, per the FA nomination, that it meets all the FA criteria. Though I am personally opposed to having 'introduction to' type articles in Wikipedia, FAC and AFD are two separate entities. For FAC we assume a-priori that an article is notable and potentially featurable; by the same token, FA status should not be used as the basis for arguing whether or not an article should be notable enough to keep. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would expect the closing admin to examine the weight of argument on each side. Geometry guy 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. BTW I'm a keep should it continue - with have a number of excellent articles as introductions to..... of which Introduction to general relativity is my favourite. Such articles do an excellent job of whittling a lot of often, highly technical information down to the bare essentials of a subject. It is unfortunately a symptom of modern life that a thorough understanding of such subjects is beyond the grasp of even highly intelligent university educated people, specialism has put it out of reach, but articles such as this at least bring us to the foothills. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not do us any harm, IMHO, to consider whether "introduction to" articles are appropriate on WP or worthwhile. Since this has been one of the most prominent struggles during the FAC process, to get community input on this point is totally appropriate. --Filll (talk) 21:43, 29 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. Mr.Z-man 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC for Kids Video Hits[edit]

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No links. Nothing special. Delete Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC For Kids Video Hits 2. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N by "miles". Poeloq (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:20, 28 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. Sandstein (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KColorEdit[edit]

Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, there's not a hint of notability; just one more little piece of software. Dicklyon (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google doesn't bring up anything significant, so I believe it fails WP:N. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question This page tells us that it's a module of KDE. (My own KDE doesn't have it, but then my own KDE is old.) If so, it's hardly surprising that it gets tens of thousands of ghits (even though (a) few may be of interest, and (b) high numbers of ghits mean little). Existing articles on KDE utilities, such as that on KIconEdit, are not encouraging. What more needs to be said about KColorEdit, other than what will anyway be written in its info file or its "about" tab? (NB I'd like an answer here, not on my talk page.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a merge of all of them into KDE? Corvus cornix_talk 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that merge KColorEdit with KDE is a good idea becouse this applications belongs to extragear and ... please take the work of read the wiki of KColorEdit for more information. And please don't underestimate this application, the fact that isn't a famous software doesn't mean that don't have a utility, this application helps people that to create their owns palettes and used in applications like Krita or Gimp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noki123 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep this article, I know that the KDE project has plans to refactored and improved this application, so maybe this article could be expaned in te future. This are the plans for kcoloredit that I found in the KDE wiki: About Utilities Also, when I wrote "kcoloredit wiki" in google, it show me this: kcoloredit wiki So I guess that now is a "notable"... (I think that the "notable" concept is very subjective so please don't abuse it) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noki123 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable software and no verifiable references to say otherwise. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:11, 30 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. Sandstein (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pops In Seoul Charts[edit]

It's basically a list of #1s on a non-notable chart on Arirang TV, a Korean channel meant for international broadcast. As it's a trivial list, there's no reason for such a page to exist. It's the equivalent of having a page on #1 videos on TRL. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:35, 21 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems trivial to me; Google search isn't very fruitful. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not Seoul Train! Mandsford (talk) 17:25, 28 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 per WP:MUSIC and WP:HEY due to addition of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Rust[edit]

Non-notable, which hasn't been remedied after almost two months of a notability tag. The only established attempts at notability are invalid: the competition for Young Composers fails #4 for composers and lyricists at WP:Music, and single performances don't fall under any of the notability criteria. SingCal (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Explodicle (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 24 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, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found two reliable sources; The Guardian and BBC News seem sufficient. I'll put them into the article. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia. We can't list every musician that has had a few performances and gotten their name in the paper. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: However, if the person in question has won a competition arranged by two very established institutions I'd say they're notable. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Review WP:MUSIC regarding notability standards. Both of the sources you posted are trivial coverage, seeing as Mr. Rust gets little more than a sentence in either one. The competition he won is impressive, but non-notable under WP policy because it's established specifically for young composers. SingCal 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He gets a sentence, but in the Guardian review he apparently got a positive reaction from an esteemed composer. ("The third winning piece in the senior (16-18) section, Paraprosdokia by Joel Rust, is for a more modest woodwind and brass sextet, but it made no less impact. Wiegold was bowled over by the work's "brilliant" opening.") Personally I think that satisfies notability, but that's the inclusionist in me. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 06:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Master of Puppets. Earth bending master 20:02, 28 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. What the deleted article's space becomes is an editorial decision that can be made anywhere, so long as this article isn't recreated. Core desat 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Player of the Century[edit]

He wanted to make this the FIFA Player of the Century Page but we kept reverting it so he made it's own page. This page is based on the fact that the creator is mad about the results of the poll. michfan2123 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever the main page is. matt91486 (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Are you kidding me? This is an opinion piece, it has no place whatever on Wikipedia. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FIFA Player of the Century. ---CWY2190^T^C 05:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of sports that this could redirect to. Why single out FIFA? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparent content fork. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much just a poorly-written opinion piece. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & redirect to FIFA Player of the Century. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect FIFA was not the only sports organization to look for a "player of the century" back in 1999. I imagine this came about as a result of an edit war, but the author's report of how easily he stuffed the ballot box is O.R. at its very worst... Mandsford (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect as per Mandsford above. -- Alexf⁴² 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we could make the page into a disambig between various player of the century pages? matt91486 (talk) 00:43, 31 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. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claude roubillie[edit]

Non-notable person. There is no evidence of notability. Jespinos (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:MUSIC. Mh29255 (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS; Wikipedia is not myspace Ohconfucius (talk) 05:46, 28 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. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loud Fast Rules! (magazine)[edit]

Non-notable magazine. No sources. Use caution if using ghits to gauge notability: there is a band by this name, but it is not related. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 04:34, 28 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 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polk Street[edit]

Non-notable street. Just a minor mention of a See's Candy store and a few pictures. Kurykh 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Add the rest. It's an interesting and varied area. DGG (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...add what? —Kurykh 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...bike lanes and Polk Gulch. Still doesn't make it notable, IMO. —Kurykh 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article provides a well-documented description to establish notability, though expansion would be helpful per User:DGG. Alansohn (talk) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see how it asserts notability, but not how it establishes notability. —Kurykh 05:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I really don't see the need to delete this article. There are a number of references in the article that establish notability. However, improvement is definitely needed. Chris! _ct 06:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being known locally for drug dealing and nightlife doesn't establish notability. You could say the same for dozens of streets in every city in the world. There's nothing about why this is notable outside the local area. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. SWik78 (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very notable San Francisco street. Besides being a prominent retail/restaurant district, it is one the the traditional centers of the iconic San Francisco gay community. It was here that the first San Francisco Gay Pride Parade took place in 1972. A lot o history explained in this Oakland Tribune article. [57]. This AfD is classic example of the increasing WP:OSTRICH trend amongst AfD noms. --Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your post was understandable and helpful until the last statement. I request you withdraw such ridiculous assumptions of bad faith. —Kurykh 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurykh, an AfD is a LAST resort when all other methods of establishing notability have been exhausted. Your justification for deleting this article was "Non-notable street. Just a minor mention of a See's Candy store and a few pictures" not only demonstrates WP:IDONTKNOWIT but indicates you were only deciding the notability of this topic by what you saw in the article and attempted to delete this article without the slightest amount of research (a few second google search would've brought up several articles about this topic). As Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." The edit history shows you made absolutely no effort to improve the article and set up this AfD. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. Next time you make a proposed deletion, repeat the following sentence from WP:OSTRICH several times... "A little research on a topic you are unfamiliar with will take just as much time as putting an article up for deletion. " --Oakshade (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in San Francisco all my life, so I'm not the total ignoramus you are trying to cast me as. Just because this street exists and has a few restaurants does not a notable street make. Admittedly, I didn't word the nomination statement as well as I should, because I was trying to say, "it pretty much cannot be expanded meaningfully beyond the present state." Now if you're presenting information that I didn't know, by all means do so, but if you're going to attack me in the guise of an AfD vote, then keep it to yourself. Next time you comment on a "proposed deletion," repeat the following sentence from WP:NPA several times... "Comment on content, not on the contributor." In your quest to teach people about proper processes, you are only coming across as aggressive and instead alienating those who you are trying to explain to. —Kurykh 00:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's also notable for its murals, too. This is how I feel right now. —B o L 00:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Polk Street is/was notable for being a center of gay culture. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above, except for the delete part. Some streets may be notable, but what about this and Castro Street? This street shows lots of notability, including City Hall, See's Candy, and Galileo. And if you're thinking about blocking me, read this first. —B o L 00:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but move to "Polk Gulch". The article is mainly about the neighborhood and not the street per se. San Francisco neighborhoods are sufficiently notable topics in themselves (note, Template:San_Francisco), and Polk Gulch has particular importance as an early center of San Francisco gay culture in the era prior to the dominance of Castro Street in that regard. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Polk Street has been famous (or infamous) for decades. I disagree that this should be moved to Polk Gulch, but I do think Polk Gulch should redirect here. Torc2 (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Polk Gulch" is the more commonly used term to describe, the neighborhood, which is what the article is really about. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - within the neighborhood, sure. But I'm a Bay Area native and have never heard the term "Polk Gulch" outside of the city. I think the references in the article kind of bear that out. Torc2 (talk) 23:36, 31 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. Core desat 04:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black and white (colours)[edit]

This article has no content, just a bunch of trivia lists of things that people see as related to black and white. There's no topic here, so no need for an article. There's already an article black-and-white, but we don't don't want all this junk merged there, as someone recently proposed, so let's just delete it, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it amounts to a list of black-and-white objects that are notable for being so. That's not trivia, but a useful guide to content, organizational device, and guide to browsing. DGG (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Loosely associated list with no apparent notability, and the introduction is basically covered by black-and-white. Probably should be made a redirect to that article. 23skidoo (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to black-and-white. Mh29255 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if for no other reason than to keep from having articles like "red and gold", "blue and silver", "green and white", etc. This is more of a parlour game than an article, where someone has made a list of things that are black and white. I can't help but think of $20,000 Pyramid, with someone giving these as clues. "A penguin... a pirate flag... a nun..." "Things that move?" "No... a butler, an old movie, a skunk..." "Things that smell bad?" "Blackbeard's flag...(BUZZ).. oh dammit" Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete loose/trivial association, and per Mandsford' logic. DGG's comment was considered, but things that are notable for being X color, things that are notable for being bigger than a breadbox, we could do nothing but make such lists. Perhaps a category would be a reasonable compromise? JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few if any of the items listed are notable simply because they are black and white. Penguins and pandas would be just as notable if they were purple and green. And Charlie Chaplin wasn't black and white! His films were. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" pretty well covers it. Also, this is all in the category of original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cant have a page for every pair of colors. Also very loosely associated Corpx (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I agree a very trivial list. --Sin Harvest (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep, page was vandalised here (and never really recovered), prior edit provided some context about natural occurence of this scheme. black-and-white has a somewhat different focus on a technique. Zedla (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suggested the merge, but deleting is just as good, if not better. Nothing notable here.Adoniscik (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment looked at prior edits pointed out by Zelda, even with an introduction, this article is still completely unsourced original research and trivial research at that. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:44, 28 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. Core desat 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Co-Operative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It was previously nominated for deletion, but was closed as no consensus. The page reads like an ad and fails WP:COMPANY. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why it wasnt deleted last time. People saying "its notable" without backing it up with reliable sources does not establish notability Corpx (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are thousands of co-ops in North America, nothing in this article establishes what is so special about this one. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment just read the archive from the first nomination, seems like "by the standards of Norfolk County, Ontario it is notable" is the only reason anyone could come up with to keep this. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and remove the redirect from Norfolk FS as well. If the current name isn't notable enough for its own article, and merely redirects here, there can't be much notability. Jim Miller (talk) 13:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking a little further, it seems clear that this article is just a tiny part of a very large problem. There are over 100 separate entries on the various "features" of Norfolk county, including every single tiny hamlet, cemetery, and school, including 10 schools that are not even in operation any more. In short, probably about 95 articles in all that fail on notability as badly, or worse than this article.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I mean Andy's Corners is a tiny little place that could be merged with Langton, Ontario. Many of these articles were created by the same user, and I'm slowly working on getting rid of some of them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the places should be kept independently unless they are neighborhoods only--it is well established that every hamlet is notable. But most of the schools and cemeteries and so onc can be merged without having to bring them here. DGG (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These places are more than just mere neighborhoods. These are full-fledged communities, even if they are just merely hamlets. I will not re-attempt to write the article about Andy's Corners, Ontario. However, you must leave all other articles related to Norfolk County alone, Scorpion0422. GVnayR (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? If they don't meet notability requirements, then they don't meet notability requirements. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't pretend to know the first thing about any part of Norfolk county, but the way it's covered on Wikipedia, you would think it's the center of the universe. The fact is that there is an overabundance of articles about Norfolk County that are poorly referenced and have no reasonable claim of notability. I don't think a hundred separate AfD debates are the answer, but there is clearly a problem here that needs solving.Beeblbrox (talk) 19:39, 1 February 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. Core desat 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use your imagination, PBS Kids and You![edit]

This is an article about a PBS Kids tagline sentence, which is not even remotely encyclopedic. Keeping this would be akin to having articles for every single solitary insignificant catchphrase for every single advertisement in history. There is no room for expansion of this article into anything that would be useful--currently it is a list of three local variants of the same sentence. I never thought I'd see PBScruft, but here it is. Gladys J Cortez 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete um...PBScruft indeed, fails WP:N spectacularly. Drop a dead cow on it. Doc Strange (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nonsense. Undeath (talk) 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's perfectly coherent; just abjectly, utterly useless. I'm still stunned by its very existence, truth to tell.Gladys J Cortez 07:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a slogan, not a topic in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A3. No content other than a rephrasing of the title. --L. Pistachio (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless information. Certainly doesn't warrant its own article. By no means a notable phrase.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above; absolutely uninformative and unmemorable. If it becomes a household slogan like "You deserve a break today" or "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should", we'll talk. -- azumanga (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources to establish notability. If at least somewhat notable, merge in to PBS otherwise delete. --Hdt83 ^Chat 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, for the love of all that's good and holy in this world, let's NOT merge it. (We've been fighting a sockfarm who insists on adding every individual PBSKids tagline and ident, in intimate detail, to the article...like, including the "doink!" noise...and I'd rather not set a precedent that would offer him even the most fragile, tenuous foothold to claim notability.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladys j cortez (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 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 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Tobacco Museum and Heritage Centre[edit]

There is no proof of the museum's notability, except for brief mentions in a newspaper article and on a website, and it fails WP:N Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Needs more citations, but I believe that all museums of a certain standard are notable. I couldn't find any specific guidelines on notability for museums, so I use my own judgement freely here. Poeloq (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not believe museums are inherently notable and no notability has been established in this case Corpx (talk) 07:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article could use some expanding and some more references, but otherwise, all museums of a certain standard are notable. GVnayR (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The above may read as a sockpuppet of mine, it is not. I have never had and never will have any sockpuppets. Poeloq (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Comment: I apologize if my statement was nearly identical to yours, Poeloq. I was just trying to agree with you. GVnayR (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a museum exists, it doesn't make it notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as not even asserting notability. Not all museums are notable, and this "article" is filled with props for smoking. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh come on, where is it pro-smoking? Poeloq (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historical museums are of encyclopedic value, just as the history the present. --Oakshade (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree that there is some WP:SOAP there. The sentence "despite a province-wide smoking ban ..." fits the bill I think. My position is that it needs a cleanup, the article as presented is not okay, but the museum itself is notable enough to have an article, especially for the historic context. It is a member of the Ontario Museums Association, which is reputable. Alaney2k (talk) 21:50, 5 February 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. Core desat 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Cemetery[edit]

It's a small cemetary in a small county in Ontario and it doesn't appear to have any real notability, or any proof of notability. Sure, it's mentioned at a genealogy website, but many cemetaries are. It fails WP:N. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, as no "famous" (=notable) people are buried here and the mere fact that it is the eternal home of many veterans does not distinguish it from most other US and internation cemeteries. Poeloq (talk) 05:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established Corpx (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article into Delhi, Ontario for expansion rather than deletion. You may have succeded in deleting the articles about other cemeteries in Norfolk County, but you won't delete this one. At least merge it into the town's article. GVnayR (talk) 04:03, 2 February 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. --MCB (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic expression of emotion[edit]

Original research. May be a paper someone wrote for a class, or a summary of one. (note: author removed WP:PROD tag without addressing concerns) FreplySpang 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Mh29255 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It certainly does seem to be a term paper or something like that, not an encyclopedia entry Beeblbrox (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge something like the last sourced bit to emotion (which needs the content). --Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 28 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Sinclair[edit]

Non-notable reality show contestant. Hasn't done anything of note since the contest. Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 14 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 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Make Me A Supermodel per WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had coverage since the contest. Epbr123 (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are trivial and there is nothing in the article worth looking at. non-notable. NBeale (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An entire article in The Independant isn't trivial. [58] Epbr123 (talk) 09:40, 27 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 02:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by newspaper articles that go beyond the context of the reality show. --L. Pistachio (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Indeed covered by newspapers, but WP:NOT#NEWS, but does go beyond the context of the show... wouldn't object to a merge, certainly not an outright delete...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "modelling across the world for magazines including Vogue, Glamour, Marie Claire and Cosmopolitan and appear[ing] in print/tv ads for Levi's, H&M, Nokia, Ben Sherman and Fabris Lane." plus the fact that she won a reality TV show seems notable « D. Trebbien (talk) 20:29 2008 February 3 (UTC)
Keep per Epbr123. The coverage cited in the article satisfies the requirements of WP:BIO, and the significant coverage in The Independent (a full article) several months after she won the contest indicates that this is not a case of WP:BIO1E. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:51, 5 February 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. Core desat 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dagon James[edit]

Can't find any reliable sources to establish subject's notability; seems to fail WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 06:44, 14 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 04:51, 20 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 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role in a nn, unreviewed movie. JJL (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability, as I've checked the subscription-only newspaper database for his name with no relevant hits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a minor appearance in a documentary does not constitute notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this AfD has been left for WikiProjects Arts, Film and Music. Pairadox (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass BIO in re film appearance(s). SkierRMH (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why did this have to be relisted? I mean, sometimes things have been removed simply because only the nominator thinks so, and there have been no objections, no comment to the nomination at all. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: It was relisted because no one commented one way or another, of course. Ravenswing 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, minor appearances in documentary are not notable. --Solumeiras (talk) 14:21, 31 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. Core desat 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greekpanel[edit]

wp:neo, tried to google term got basically nothing. word doesn't seem to exist anywhere except in the books that are cited as references. 9 ghits, none are about lighting, except the wikipedia article, which is hit #1. Pharmboy (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't confirm it even exists; need WP:RS for WP:V. JJL (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a pop culture term that is used by many in the lighting design business. It should remain in Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmFromAbileneTX (talk • contribs) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless real sources are forthcoming. The "references" listed don't seem to have anything to do with this "pop culture term". Provide some proof that it's a well known term, with reliable sources. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No decent sources, and the article is frankly pretty unclear to the casual reader unfamiliar with lighting equipment. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unverifiable; not necessarily with prejudice. Not only is the article rather confusing in its present form, it contains a perplexing link that redirects to fraternities and sororities. If "greek organization" has some different meaning in the light fixtures business, I haven't heard the usage, and Google knows nothing either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I own a residential and commmercial lighting fixture store in Nevada and we have people ask us about light diffusers and greekpanels now and then. I don't carry them, but I know other places that do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CAEffects&Design (talk --CAEffects&Design (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you provide citations from reliable sources that use the term? That is the issue. Whether or not it is used is not, for if we can't verify the term, it must be deleted. I can't find any sources that meet (or dont meet) wp:RS. Otherwise, it has to be deleted via the WP:NEO policy or others. Pharmboy (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20-Mule-Team Delete: Article created by an SBA with no other edits. "Keep" votes are both by SBAs with no other edits. "Greekpanel" + "lighting" = only Google hit, this article. One of the two references, a 1983 Science article, does not in fact have the term. Survey says: WP:HOAX. RGTraynor 21:24, 28 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 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bircas Hatorah[edit]

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, possibly has conflict of interest issues, appears to be seeking notability by being on Wikipedia Jeepday (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All secondary schools are usually considered notable, as are all colleges. From the description, this falls somewhere in the middle. There is considerable difficulty in referencing religious schools of this sort from easily available sources, but the sources generally do prove to exist. DGG (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some cursory references. Both Bircas HaTorah and Rabbi Shimon Green are notable. - Operknockity (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the description of the program and the multiple sources provided, the Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Insertion of these sources as inline references will greatly improve the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article provide sufficient basis for notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending more sources being found, I'm not convinced the ones found so far constitute "significant coverage", most of them seem like trivial mentions relating to a seperate topic. Guest9999 (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if the final decision is not deletion, then spelling should be changed to HaTorah. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - And by the way, how do you get capitalization correct on a first submission? It seems WP always 'fixes' capitalization on first sub, requiring a subsequent edit. - Operknockity (talk) 03:49, 29 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) 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Learning Center[edit]

Article consists mostly of text copy-pasted from the organization's web site. It contains no sources, and I was unable to find anything that would establish notability under WP:ORG. L. Pistachio (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of organizations deletions.--Lquilter (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: reads like WP:SPAM. Mh29255 (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete One section is a copy of their pdf brochure and the rest probably is a copy of other similar places on the site. DGG (talk) 05:06, 28 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. --MCB (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Piilani[edit]

Speedy deletion overturned at DRV. The article does contain some claim of importance, but it seems to fall short on sourcing. The sources are industry-related and do not seem to be independent, also they do not seem to contain non-trivial information on this person, but merely list him. A broader news search turns up nothing on this guy. So I'd say Delete unless better sourcing is located. W.marsh 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable per WP:BIO and unverifiable per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep He's the CEO of Unified Technologies Group, which should have an article as one of the signif internet companies--not the most signif, but signif. enough. His role in this and several other earlier developments is sufficient. Does need some real sourcing, and spam removal. DGG (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of the signif internet companies" has [43 unique Google hits] and [no Google news hits at all], even archive ones? I guess we all have our own definitions of significance, but good luck finding any reliable sourcing on that one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This also appears to be a self-promotion/WP:COI case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 31 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. Core desat 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unixpunx[edit]

Non-notable website. Written like an advertisment. Tavix (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mh29255 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and the intro says it all ;-) Poeloq (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An ad for a defunct website isn't what Wikipedia is about Beeblbrox (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like the ideals, but the only arguments I can give for keeping it boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. This really isn't all that notable otherwise. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Website was/is a secondary project by its members. After they lost the domain name (unixpunx.org), plans emerged to get it back/start a new site. www.uxpx.org has been registered and will be the basis for a new site. Unitepunx (talk) 20:03, 1 February 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. Core desat 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Rube[edit]

The only information I can find about this fellow online is a 1999 newspaper article mentioning his hiring by Navigant, along with some directory entries that may or may not refer to the same person—nothing about his artistic endeavors. Seems to be a nonnotable businessman. Username of article creator matches name of subject. Deor (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per nom. Vrac (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lquilter (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in this article looks like it would be enough to establish truly encyclopedic notability.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Modernist (talk) 14:59, 28 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 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks-Pacers rivalry[edit]

WP:NOR No proof of an actual rivalry. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this is one of the better known NBA rivalries... the rivalry specifically been written about a bit. Here's another NYT article about the rivalry: [59]. --W.marsh 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep, so long as more sources are forthcoming. I'll see if I can find those additional sources tomorrow, but I know this has been a rivalry since at least the mid 1980's, and I remember many a newspaper article dealing with this rivalry, especially around playoff time (where the winner had the Chicago Bulls of Michael Jordan's heyday to look forward to). Caveat: I grew up in Indianapolis. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A significant NBA rivalry. I'll see if I can find some sources as well. matt91486 (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional sources have been added documenting the existence -- and ferocity -- of the rivalry, which included some of Reggie Miller's best games of his career. As always, Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires that a nominator research potential claims of notability before pursuing AfD. As cited above, a Google News search on "Knicks-Pacers rivalry" found dozens of sources, including the ones added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would be pleasant if noms were required to research before filing an AfD, but I'm curious as to where on WP:DP it actually states explicitly that they are. Possibly I'm just not seeing the text; could you quote it? RGTraynor 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a nutshell: "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion". Alansohn (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, an interpretation. I see. RGTraynor 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That ain't no "interpretation". This means that a nominator is obligated to improve the article before nomination, in no uncertain terms, a step that appears to have been bypassed here and at a huge percentage of AfD nominations. Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is what you believe it means, in any event, and that is what the dictionary calls an "interpretation." An explicit requirement would be, hrm, text along the lines of "Nominators are required to research the notability of subjects prior to filing AfDs." If you want to hit WP:DB's talk page to advocate putting that language in, I'll pitch right in myself, but as of now, it ain't there. RGTraynor 21:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, now I think I get it. You believe that the word "should" means that it would be a nicety if those putting articles up for deletion bother to take the time to do any due diligence before nominating articles, but that they have no obligation to do so and there is no issue if they do absolutely nothing before initiating an AfD. Is this what you are referring to as an issue of "interpretation" that I believe that "should" means "must" while your believe "should" means "only if they want to" when Wikipedia:Deletion policy states "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion"? Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I checked out Dictionary.com and other sites, which agree that "should" means "must". As such, the nominator must do this basic research, editing and improvement, even if the text of Wikipedia:Deletion policy isn't changed. Can you support your claim that "should" means anything other than "must"? Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As someone once said "This is an encyclopedia, and not only do we have an obligation to know about what we're talking, we have no right to vote or make edits in willful ignorance -- if you insist on being ignorant, go hang out in a blog instead. It drives me nuts to see AfDs filed on articles where the nom could -- and should -- have taken five minutes to follow up a few Google hits and realized the genuine notability of the subject." The fact that Wikipedia:Deletion policy is violated in the process only adds to the problem. Alansohn (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-documented rivalry through the 1990s. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 16:11, 28 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 to Scratchcard. JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break Open[edit]

This is just a definition (note sole listed source, a bingo dictionary). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I created this page, but have no issue with it being deleted. I expected some help in filling out the pages, discussing break-opens, flimsies and other bingo scratchcards. May just make the most sense to merge this article with scratchcard. --FeldBum (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to scratchcard, or anywhere appropriate (not an expert on the subject myself).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:40, 28 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 as proposed. Sandstein (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore Transit Company[edit]

Article is about non-existent service. It should be deleted or merged to Maryland Transit Administration or History of MTA Maryland. This page is about a defunct transit agency that has not been in operation for nearly 40 years, but is written like it is one that is presently existing, and is inaccurate. Of particular concern is the external link on this page, which is to a page that gives the impression the agency is operating today, and is the basis for the inaccurate information in this article. It appears to all be a Hoax. Sebwite (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar wirth the website you're talking about, and while it is no hoax (it seems to be a rather odd tribute site to the old BTCo) I do think that the article ought to be moved as you propose.Staszu13 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maryland Transit Administration, the successor of the real Baltimore Transit Co. The supposed BTCo website appears to be a set of joke subpages on a transit history fansite [60]. Even if it is for real, historic BTC is notable, this new one fails WP:V and WP:CORP. Nothing to merge. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene93k. There's actually a reasonable article at History of MTA Maryland that explains things better than this article. It's possible to write a good article about a defunct transit company, as in Twin City Rapid Transit, but Baltimore Transit Company doesn't meet this standard. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The dubious weblink tends to steer the article toward the dark side. There may be a story to be told, but for now this doesn't deserve its own page. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 3 February 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Stephan[edit]

Autobiography of what appears to be a somewhat marginal musician and producer. No reliable third-party coverage provided and I couldn't find much on the web besides his name popping up here and there. Pichpich (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Violates WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:OR. You know, all the core policies and then some. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 29 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. Core desat 04:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viva China[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Tavix (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per nom. Vrac (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only 57 Google hits for "viva China"+airline and none of them are relevant to this looks like a WP:HOAX. And even if it wasn't, there's no sources to back up the claims made by the article. It's also strange that a Chinese based company would use an Italian term (no matter how much it is used) in it's company name. Doc Strange (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments per Doc Strange. Mh29255 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V at the very least.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Pudong international airport (according to the article a hub of the airline) flight schedules. See here(you have to scroll down) There is no Viva china among the airlines. --Thw1309 (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very fishy article, and editor has been accused of sockpuppeting. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:07, 31 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. --MCB (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.co.nr[edit]

not notable web-site Tavix (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete, it's advertising. Vrac (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, adv. JJL (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to .nr - not even an official second level domain... 70.55.85.35 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to .nr, possibly merge.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to .nr or, as above, merge -- ReviewDude (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to .CO.NR Free Domain --81.76.102.165 (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not advertising because it does not attempt to convince the reader to get an account.

Do not redirect; this would be like redirecting google.com to .com.

As far as notability, considering Nauru's depressed economy as a result of its government's decision to stop offering shady off-shore banking services, this is an interesting page that explores the nation's creative way of bolstering the local economy.

~~Also, I haven't done the research in a while, but I am not aware of too many websites that offer free domains, hence this is somewhat notable. « D. Trebbien (talk) 18:31 2008 February 3 (UTC)~~

This service isnt run by the nauru government.. see http://www.forums.co.nr/index.php?showtopic=4688 for more info --81.76.102.165 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. « D. Trebbien (talk) 03:26 2008 February 5 (UTC)

Delete. No sources of notability. --Funper (talk) 22:32, 3 February 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, probably could have been speedied per A7 (band). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FR8[edit]

Non-notable band. No references provided. A search for them only turns up cduniverse sales entry and a metal fan sites entry. Claims open for notable bands, but that notability is not currently present for this band. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because album by same band even less references available than band itself.:[reply]

Delete Both Non-notable. SingCal 22:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as there is no evidence of notability for a band or its music. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 5 February 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. Core desat 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beast slayer[edit]

Story with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Original version said this was a manga; 76 non-wiki ghits for "Beast Slayer" + manga, none of which appear to be about this series. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a character from the story, with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION:[reply]

Delete No signs that this is notable or even published. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability due to lack of sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly non-notable. JuJube (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously, per everyone. Makes no assertion of notability but A7 doesn't apply to books or stories.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:43, 28 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 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bak 2 Bassikz[edit]

not-notable Tavix (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nominator, non-notable. Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 00:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable film company WP:ORG. Also no secondary sources to confirm WP:RS. --Breno ^talk 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Poeloq (talk) 05:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally millions of people have made YouTube videos. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:16, 28 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 Userfy for possible smerging. Policy arguments below do not support having this as a separate article (WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR) but some of the material may be appropriate in the articles on the individual aircraft. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum reported B-17 & B-24 bomb loads[edit]

Unencyclopedic essay at best; original research at worst. Indeed, on the article's talk page, the contributor gives his reason for writing it as the apparent absence of any such table in published secondary sources. An impressive piece of work, but not what I think one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Rlandmann (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - BillCJ (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strategic bombing during World_War II#Allied bombing statistics 1939–45 Colonel Warden (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe merge into specific articles about the planes? Agree with the nom that this is an essay Corpx (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable, if specialised topic. If we merge it to Strategic bombing during World_War II#Allied bombing statistics 1939–45, but then that article size becomes too large, do we split it off again? Martintg (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the salvagable encyclopedic content may only be a few sentences; I don't think it would overwhelm the article(s) being merged into. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate data and info to "Strat. bombing", B-17, and/or B-24 articles. LanceBarber (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Possible some text may be salvaged into appropriate articles. MilborneOne (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to strategic bombing. There is key content here if put into a larger context. While the British bombers had a greater bombload, they had less defensive capability and less accuracy, where the US design philosophy, especially on the B-17, was essentially the reverse. This led to a natural day/night separation between the US and UK effort, but also touches on the British "dehousing" strategy that was easiest for bombers optimized for area, not point, attack. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though a sentence or two might prove useful across other articles, this is overly specific and borders OR. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, but merge some of the content cited from secondary sources into the articles on the two bombers. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Only the few conclusions drawn by the author are original research. Otherwise the article is full of verifiable references and information that may not be found elsewhere in a single article, and would be lost in deletion. It's a specialized topic but that's not reason enough to delete it. - Jack-z 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After deletion, where will inquiring minds go to find the true bomb-carrying capacity and range of the two heavy bombers deployed against the Nazis by the United States? Will they be left to the tender mercy of the popular author in the article’s first footnote who states that a B-24 could carry the near equivalent weight of the largest bomb used in Europe, the 22,000lb Grand Slam not to the Bielefeld Viaduct approximately 350 miles into Germany (which was how far the Special Variant Lancaster hauled it) but an additional 500 miles! while putting up a good fight against the determined enemy defenses? This is comparable to someone stating that the Space Transportation System (Space Shuttle) could place all the gold in Fort Knox in its cargo bay and deliver it to low earth orbit. Does anyone care about the truth, about the facts? Does Wikipedia not see a role here? When it has the opportunity to inform, clearly its most important mission, does it wish to remain silent?

The fact the the article doesn’t fit existing templates would seem secondary. I did not start out thinking that I would research a subject and publish the results in Wikipedia. I set out to ascertain whether the B-24 did the job being handled by the B-17 as well or better than the older design. Data on bomb loads and range are all over the place, and some reports claimed that the B-24 could carry a heavier bombload faster and farther than the B-17. In order to save other curious souls the trouble of trawling through endless costly books and articles bearing on the subject I decided to write the article in Wikipedia so that others could benefit from my experience. I have not, to my knowledge, presented my opinions but rather have tried to “set the table” with information, backed by excellent sources, for others to pick from.

If anyone of those finding the article worthy of deletion would quote a sentence or two that is “unencyclopedic” I would be grateful. I’d like to grasp the reason for deleting something that I think makes Wikipedia better.Edweirdo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have set out to research but by the description of your actions, that is what you did do.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:56, 7 February 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] Ingo Neuhaus - Biography

[2] Ingo Neuhaus

[3] Ingo Neuhaus - Trailer - Showtimes - Cast - Movies - New York Times

[4] Ingo Neuhaus - TV.com

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]