Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 29

< June 28	June 30 >

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 merge to University of Central Florida. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCF Police Department[edit]

Procedural AFD. I've declined an A7 speedy on this as I think a police force has at least an inherent assertion of notability. While this is undoubtedly a small force, there are certainly much smaller forces with their own articles. Procedural nom to get a consensus; personally, I very weakly support keep. – iride scent 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:OTHERSTUFF? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what feels like the zillionth time... WP:OTHERSTUFF is a personal essay, not any kind of policy – iride scent 00:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I hope we all can refrain from invoking any essays or personal opinions during the course of this debate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he/she was pointing out the point of the essay: pointing out that better/worse articles exist makes for a poor argument in deletion debate. I think the notability of the department should be based upon news coverage (See WP:NOTBIGENOUGH). In this context, I have found a few mild notability-asserting articles using Google News search: UCF police officer fatally shot by Orlando police - ESPN, UCF cops hope new station gets students' attention - Orlando Sentinel, UCF police chief forced from job - Orlando Sentinel. By these findings, I will have to give it a weak keep. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main UCF article as I don't think this police force is notable enough. I think the difference between this force and the UK forces you mention is that in the UK small police forces are fairly rare and normally quite old and so, IMO, their novelty and history value normally makes them notable (although in my personal opinion I do wonder if they could all be mergered into one article). It is my undertsanding that the us has many (hundreds / thousands?) of small police forces and so this arguement can't be used with US forces. Dpmuk (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It says 17,784 in Policing in the United States. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to the main UCF article. It is notable but I can't see the article getting much longer than it is now. If in the future it needs to be split, then it could be done, but at this point a section does the job perfectly. Rasadam (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local police forces--especially special police forces of college cmpuses-- are not notable unless they become involved in major events, or are police forces of major cities (NYC, chicago, etc. ) DGG (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to University of Central Florida. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing has been put forward to show notability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Central Florida. Article is only a few sentences and has notability concerns, makes a great candidate for a merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western interpretations of Taoism[edit]

Confusing list of books and a personal web page; not constitutive of an article and has not been edited in several months. WP:NOTDIRECTORY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a book list with no article --T-rex 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTACARDCATALOG --Millbrooky (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, directory list Rasadam (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Barrett[edit]

Uncontaminated by reliable sources for quite a long time and apparently so far lacking notability per WP:BIO outside of S Club. Would suggest that if her solo career can't be reliably sourced this should be deleted and any relevant content merged back to S Club who are, it has to be said, as the dodo. Without prejudice to her own article if it ever happens for her. Rodhull andemu 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Because S Club 7 were aimed at kids, not everyone appreciates just how huge they were; I'd say easily at the level where each member warrants their own page. I agree Barrett's probably the least active of the original seven - on a quick skim, the only coverage of her in a major source post S Club was of a stalker being jailed - but IMO she still warrants her own article which should be fairly easily expanded. If noone else takes it on, I'll add her to my to-do list, but given the size of it probably won't get round to her for at least a couple of months. – iridescent 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like plenty of sources exist.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79472832.html is behind a pay wall, but looks good "TINA BARRETT of S CLUB 7 lives in a rundown council flat in Hammersmith and is pretty short of cash. It's a bit of a surprise seeing as the band are doing..."
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-109236014.html Also behind a pay wall, but: "Now my spies tell me is all is not well between ex- S Club 7 bandmate Tina Barrett and her rich boyfriend Tommy Hulme. "They have been arguing a lot,"
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-82280117.html

Hobit (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with this is that it cites The People, a tabloid newspaper, which is not regarded as a reliable source, and is a paysite, failing verifiability policy. If proper reliable sources are found for the notability of this person, fine. --Rodhull andemu 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: #1 I think tabloid newspapers are quite reasonable for this type of topic. #2 The question is if the topic is notable, not verifiable. I think the sources are enough for WP:N Hobit (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think here, particularly the last line of that paragraph, is where we should be looking. --Rodhull andemu 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where on earth are you getting "Tabloid newspapers are not a reliable source" from? We're talking about one of the biggest circulation newspapers in the UK, not the Weekly World News. – iridescent 00:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Circulation is irrelevant to the quality of the journalism. The Sun has a higher circulation than The People, and they reported "Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster", on its front page, which was false. Please don't be fooled by popularity, that generally has little to do with reliability, and that's what we're seeking here. --Rodhull andemu 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to get into an argument about this so this will be my last post but that says nothing whatsoever about "tabloids are not a reliable source". On the contrary, it says "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed", and Trinity Mirror is certainly that. Yes, the Sun has printed inaccurate stories which they've later retracted, but so has every newspaper in the world. Are you seriously claiming the People story is not true? – iridescent 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the cited policy: "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Certainly the first two of Hobit's citations have WP:BLP concerns if they're not true. Any item that starts "Spies tell me..." is particularly dangerous for us to rely on. That's why we have these policies, and is why we haven't yet been successfully sued. And it isn't about truth, it's about verifiability. Not the same thing. --Rodhull andemu 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that a news article said that is verifiable. I'm not saying that these news articles are the best sources for her article. They merely show notability. There are plenty of sources where she is not the primary subject of the source from which to build a good wiki article. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oneworld destinations[edit]

Apart from not having a single valid reference, Oneworld, Star Alliance and Skyteam are not airlines, they don't have any destinations, and most importantly, Wikipedia is not an avenue for marketing. A valid reference is one that doesn't contain simple Oneworld websiteor the like Россавиа ^Диалог 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too are alliances not airlines and suffer the same problems as the nomination article:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - per nom. these are not airlies, so they don't really have destinations --T-rex 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - The article pages of these ventures link the airlines involve which have their destinations listed. There is no need for the additional list, borders marketing but besides that it's just duplicate information. Rasadam (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not really sure how this is marketing (some of the articles on the alliances themselves border on marketing, though). The reference issue can very easily be fixed; all three alliances publish timetables, which for this should be sufficient, since the information is entirely objective and not subject to argument. If someone insists on an additional source, OAG also has the information. DB (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a lot of the airline articles border on marketing. Additionally, in regards to these 3 articles, WP:NOT#TRAVEL also comes into play, as WP is not a travel guide. If the 3 alliances publish timetables, that is great, but they do not require a separate list. A link to their timetable on the main article is perhaps an idea. In regards to OAG, two things, firstly, it is a paid-for service and makes checking for WP:V purposes difficult, and secondly, flights are not listed on OAG (or any other service that I can think of) as "Oneworld" flights, but flights of the actual carrier, and codeshares (if they exist on the particular flight being searched). --Россавиа ^Диалог 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 03:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magpies Cafe[edit]

This one already disappeared in a speedy delete, but now it is back. It appears to be a pleasant local establishment, but not one of any particular notability beyond its neighbourhood. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article page is blank. Townlake (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Mills[edit]

Previously prodded, now recreated; the subject fails WP:ATHLETE, he is a young footballer contracted with Tottenham Hotspurs, on loan to Brentford, but with zero professional appearances as of June 2008. Angelo (talk) 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and also fails WP:FOOTYN. Nfitz (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, according to the Tottenham website, he has played for the reserve team [1]. I'm fairly sure the FA Premier Reserve League is notable (We even cover by Season on Wikipedia). On this basis, with the combination of individual notability (press coverage with transfers) and national youth team appearances (also according to the tottenham website), he does pass the notability test. Rasadam (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The FA Premier Reserve League is not fully professional, as clubs can (and often do) include players from the youth teams, who are not under professional contracts. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but the fact that he's now on a first team with a Pro side, and is pretty much assured to make an appearance when the season begins, this just seems like a delete just based on semantics. The article will just be recreated in september, giving more work to whoever does it because logs won't be available, and just a big waste of time. The season starts in just two months. Rasadam (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Vote I don't mean to be crystal balling!! But this loan contract is full season, that pretty much guarantee's Mills will be playing some pro games. But we can easily recreate this article when he does play his first game. Govvy (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberate domains[edit]

Non-notable software, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Sounds like an advertisement there at the end. Fails notability hands down as stated above. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 17:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above comment. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads as an advert, and there doesn't seem to be any notability, alongside the lack of citations -Toon^{0 5} 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING unless some valid citations for notability are added.--Finalnight (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the consensus so far is that it is advertising I will nominate for speedy per G11. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above, and per WP:COATRACK. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the consensus so far is that it is advertising I will nominate for speedy per G11. – ukexpat (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy This has not been up long enough to snow. Let's let the AFD run and maybe someone will come up with notability and sourcing so that we can keep the thing with a rewrite. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote, shortened, and attempted to create a more neutral article. Does this new format make the article any more acceptable? Thank you in advance for your help--Zenith716 (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As it stands the article barely demonstrates the notability of the subject. You will need to come up with some more sources. Links to other WP articles and the business' own website don't count as reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your quick reply. I have made a few changes and will make more as time is available. Your help is appreciated.--Zenith716 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: article has changed substantially since the majority of the debate occurred. Relisting so the article as it now stands can be discussed.

Delete, sources in the article simply refer to the problem the software is supposed to address, not the actual software. This still fails notability. Of the 10 references in the article, only 3 mention actually concern the software and two of these references are the vendor's website. The one external source is a local news website that doesn't help it meet the notability requirements. Rasadam (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Heavily Modify Agree with statement above. Comment: I do see a potential for something on this in the future (maybe). If notability can be brought up (as in someone using it, mentioning, etc.), I will switch to keep, since it would save time than rewriting it, but since this software is not yet notable, and because it describes the problem more than the notability (it does describe how the software works, I'll give you that), I'm staying with delete for now. Perhaps instead it should be mentioned briefly on the article on cybersquatting as a possible solution instead and link to the website instead of having a wiki page. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill's Arena[edit]

A contested Prod. This website about divorce and family law, started by 14 year old Bill Sears, does not appear to meet the criteria for notability for inclusion here . Google [2] and Googlenews [3] searches reveal no reliable sources about the website, though on the talkpage the creator of this article provided this reliable source from a local newspaper [4] as well as a press release, blogs and a youtube mention. The article claims mentions in various reliable sources but of those I can find, the People magazine doesn't mention the website, [5] one is a letter to the editor [6], but another local newspaper Eureka Reporter does mention it [7]. Is this enough? And there is also the complication that much of the article appears to be about Bill Sears and his achievements, rather than the website itself. And finally, judging by the article creator's name, User:Searsmall there is a likely conflict of interest involved, and certainly the editor's other edits have been to include internal and external links to this article and to the website itself multiple times. [8][9][10][11] etc Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alexa rankings for the site are 507,000 and the author's own admission is that the site gets only 500 or so hits a day. The founder may have a claim based on a couple of articles about him rather than the website. That's that's still a bit thin for me but I suppose we will see what happens if this gets deleted and Bill creates a vanity article for himself. Montco (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider salting. WP:WEB not satisfied, and I don't see an alternative criteria of notability this passes. I agree with the appearance of COI, and the aggressive spamming of Bill's Arena to other articles is a problem. Townlake (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the articles in the AJC and Cox News Service are verifiable on the web and in print, there is a valid Video of Fox Television coverage on Google Video containing and interview with Bill from the May 25, 2007 appearance on The Fox Morning Show with Mike and Juliet (simply google Bill Sears and it will come up if you don't want to follow the link from his site). 500 per day is counting unique visitors only as the site gets well over 1000 page views per day.

As I mentioned in the Talk Page, there is a small listing of the publicity that Bill and his Website have gotten through a totally grass roots effort. I would be more than happy to fax you copies of the Cox News Service Feature Articles about Bill and his site as well as documentation on other activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.30.210 (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraged to post information here guiding us to reliable sources attesting to the site's notability. (Note this is different from Bill Sears's notability - this discussion regards an article about a website.) Townlake (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means, as my searches to date have found only the AJC letter to the editor and Cox News Service article already listed and linked above. I have now found the Fox Video [12], but the website is only mentioned very, briefly, with most of the video being about the effect of divorce on children, with Bill, his dad and two other experts talking about the subject. Slp1 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine[edit]

NN. Only one secondary source available. ongoing editwarring ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete and salt. All sources but one are primary sources. Ongoing and relentless disruption. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and salt. Agree with Jossi Uponleft (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) — Uponleft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Uponleft is a confirmed sockpuppet of Traden and has been caught by administrators attempting to defraud this AfD. See here for more info. Bstone (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I thought that Traden was a confirmed sock of Uponleft. (I suppose the root problem is that the metaphor is meaningless; the fact is that these are two UIDs for the same person. Still, so far as we use metaphors, we should get them right.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct. Uponleft is the puppetmaster and Traden was the sock. Sorry for the confusion. Bstone (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Weak delete: I don't quite agree about the primariness of the sources, but bottom line is that this institution is marginally notable at best for being mentioned in passing as unaccredited by various US states and the UK. This is all I could find on Google News, which doesn't seem enough to build a good article. The constant campaigns to whitewash the article by rotating groups of SPA's are a pain to deal with as well. I'm reluctant to "reward" such tactics, but the bottom line is that we are better off without this article. It's a nexus of disruption and will never be a decent article without better sources, which don't exist. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Many RS and 3rd party sources have covered this school. It passes the notability test quite well. Further, WP:SCHOOL demonstrates that this university does indeed pass the notability test. Bstone (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see one secondary source, all others being primary sources, or used in a away that is borderline in its compliance with WP:NOR. Basically, a marginally notable institution, constant disruption, and not enough material for an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed with Jossi 69.244.177.252 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article in the BBC does a good job of establishing notability. Plus, the previous AfD and ArbCom case also lend credence to it's notability. Bstone (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One article is not enough for a quality and NPOV WP article, and an ArbCom case is not basis to assert notability, on the contrary: it only demonstrates what a bloody waste of community time this marginal organization has already taken. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can agree with a lot of that. Marginal, yes; bloody waste of time, yes. But I'm sure that a short paragraph would be helpful. We may appreciate good graphic design, but no graphic design is going to save our lives or kill us. Dunno about you, but on two (brief) occasions I've been under general anesthetic and my life has depended on good medical education. I'd say that, unlike education in graphic design, medical education (together with any failure of medical education) is a matter of public concern. -- Hoary (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote -- IMHO, deletion of this page would serve only one purpose :: to enable apologists to "prove" that the doubts, criticism etc. had been removed from Wikipedia, ad to argue to that had been done because ST.C was a 100% genuine institution. In addition, the soi-disant edit wars indicate notability to me. -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 10:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Colleges of medicine are notable. That this is technically a branch campus does not make it less notable--the international "branches" of notable universities are as notable as any other major part of a university. Anfd for that matter, many medical schools are and have always been located at branch campuses other than the main university. By continuing practice, unaccredited does not mean non-notable--the information is important and there are always discussions of the accreditation for references and links, such as the bbc. One article from such a source is quite enough for an article. And the difficulty of maintaining an article has never been accepted as reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add it to your watchlist then... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if this article is kept, a much heavier hand needs to be employed in enforcing the ArbCom sanctions against the unending parade of sock/meatpuppets (some of which are in evidence at this AfD). Otherwise there's no point. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it isn't you doing the enforcing. You cannot remain neutral on this subject. Other admins (NOT JzG) that were previously involved were much more neutral and would be a significantly better choice for maintaining neutrality. Uponleft (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, you and your fellow meatpuppets will be restricted under the terms of the ArbCom case, whether by me or by another admin. The underlying problem is larger and more persistent than just your recent slew of accounts, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and prove your worthless accusations. Oh, that's right, you've already said you can't. Typical nonsense from an admin shill with an agenda. Uponleft (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that any admin reviewing the contributions of your recent slew of accounts will find ample evidence, to the standard that Wikipedia requires, of agenda-driven meatpuppetry. I'm not sure whom you think I'm shilling for, or what you think my agenda is, beyond preventing a relatively clear-cut and well-documented abuse of Wikipedia. Your agenda, on the other hand, could not be clearer. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's one of your Admin friends then I have no doubt that they will find what you ask them to find. You have a solid history of such behavior and abuse so I wouldn't be surprised by you continuing this trend. Uponleft (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school, while not exactly high profile, is notable as a college of medicine (albeit with controversial credentials). I imagine people in the community interested in more information about this institution may find this entry useful. Andrew73 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete,and Salt. I would have to agree with Jossi and Mast Cell's comments. This school is not notable. Remember the criteria for notability involves "significant" "substantial" coverage by secondary sourceS. The accreditation status doesn't influence this decision either, accredited or non accredited, same argument applies, and the information being "important" or community interest does not lend to notability. Remember, notability "is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." ^[1]

As far as deleting the article sending a message of authenticity, that is a personal opinion that some may have. On the contrary, some may also be of the opinion that it was removed because it was a non-notable organization (which the latter happens to be the case, by definition, as discussed above). Who's to guess what people may infer by an article deletion, or if they would even notice at all? The endless disruption, article going to ArbCom, and edit warring only serve as further weight for trying to make something out of nothing (trying to make something notable which it clearly is not) and wasting everyones' time. Traden (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC) — Traden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *::Traden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a confirmed sock whose only edit is to this AfD. Bstone (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, improve, and freeze if necessary. An institution of this name verifiably exists (or verifiably recently existed) in Britain. In some countries, institutions calling themselves medical schools are perhaps numerous and unnotable. In Britain, they're so few that anybody related to medical education may well be able to list the lot without being prompted. (Judge for yourself: Template:Medical Schools (United Kingdom).) Users of Wikipedia can reasonably expect to see it written up. Moreover, they may well benefit from reading a fair description, especially if they are thinking of studying at the place or employing one of its graduates. The institution has been written up on bbc.co.uk and also in the Guardian; it is thus at least arguably noteworthy for those who think noteworthiness is conferred by media coverage. The article has indeed become something of a battleground between one faction that is skeptical of any claim made for the institution and another that's keen to remove any mention of criticism. An apparently analogous article about a person might well be deleted on "BLP"-related grounds; however, I'd say (1) that the coverage questioning claims made by or for the institution is itself unusual, substantial, and noteworthy (far more so than is the debunking of, say, "Sollog"; see here), and (2) that an institution that has verifiably promoted itself as a worthwhile medical school thereafter has no right of privacy for this promotion. The verifiability of any claim or counterclaim can be thrashed out on the article's talk page and the article itself can be sprotected or even fully protected for as long as is necessary. (If the talk page too is disrupted, that too can be sprotected.) Near-permanent full protection is of course not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, but deletion of an article on an institution such as this strikes me as a considerably worse option. -- Hoary (talk) 02:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaboration: By talk page disruption, I don't mean heated argument or even name-calling; I mean such things as deletion of or tampering with others' comments. -- Hoary (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia has become rather fit at handling articles like this in a helpful way. Moreover, as Hoary says, readers will find fair, sourced coverage of this school helpful. A UK branch of a med school is indeed notable and moreover, the topic does have verifiable coverage. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep articles on elementary schools, so it'd be highly inconsistent to delete articles on medical schools. I know that this article is a source of ongoing trouble, and I appreciate the good faith nomination. Nonetheless, the topic meets the de facto standards for notability of educational establishments (it exists). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a nasty history of manipulation of the article, and the current version of this article has serious problems, but those aren't good reasons for deleting an article. The institution is notable, if only for the controversy it has aroused. --Orlady (talk) 14:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfelt plea: Will everyone !voting keep please watchlist the article? I enjoy surprisingly familiar vitriol from 2-day-old single-purpose accounts as much as the next admin, but the more eyes the better on this one. JzG used to watch it, but he's inactive at present and I am a poor substitute. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should close this with keep, but I am not sure it is worth the aggravation... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Rare[edit]

Non-notable porn actress; has appeared in several movies but has garnered no awards or other mention to establish notability. Contested prod. Plvekamp (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some referenced claim of notability can be made. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. She's appeared in 20 movies (bit more than several). -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing verifiable to note about this person other than her "appearance" in 20 films. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:PORNBIO. Shawisland (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as she doesn't meet the notability criteria Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Quartermaster if someone finds sources. --Kipof (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so she's appeared in 20 movies. Whoopee! Has she a) won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, b) made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, or c) been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media? No, I didn't think so! She fails WP:PORNBIO so the article should be deleted. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, other than these should be nominated separately. No prejudice against immediate renom, as long as they are not bundled together. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chungnang District Information Library[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory or guidebook. These Seoul public libraries are not individually notable.

In each case the article consists only of name and location; the references for each library are only its own web-site (mostly in Korean) and a list of Seoul public libraries. I have left off this list the National Library of Korea, an established article, and also National Assembly Library of Korea and Korea Foundation Cultural Center which, although new and with no more information than these, seem to me to have the possibility of development into encyclopedia articles.

For those listed, I suggest we delete all; I find it hard to see how they could be made encyclopedic, and I think a single article on the Seoul public library system, with a reference to the list of libraries, would be adequate. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with delete all per JohnCD's rationale above. Wikipedia is, indeed, not a directory. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, All are individually notable, but just need more time to develop each article' contents. Besides, didn't you see that "municipal library" among them? Namsan Public Library is also very famous and has been frequently a location for filming. I have to check other libraries in cities in US. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what basis do you claim that these are all individually notable? My nomination has nothing to do with their being Korean; my local public library is certainly not individually notable, and I wouldn't expect that all of those in any city were. JohnCD (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Because I've lived there for years, as a locale, I certainly know about the libraries much better than you. I don't know where you live, but the libraries are not just some libraries, especially, Namsan Public Library which holds historic documents and resource. You will see a little implement by me in the short period time right after leaving the above comment. You certainly know that "municipal" is bigger than just ward or neighborhood. The article was freshly created and you just put up for deletion so quickly. Wikipedia is a place for readers to access more information, and the listed articles could provide such chances to readers. Well, I'm pretty sure of the this AFD discussion would take more days, so you also will see how the article would be developed. --Caspian blue (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbundle there's no way these can effectively be handled together. Some may be more notable and should be kept, whereas others may not be notable. For example, Namsan has [13] been cited in book development in Korea as well as other research as has Yongsan Library. I think there is a potential bias issue here if they are handled en masse and notable issues may be overlooked. I don't think the nom was in bad faith but having dealt with coverage of other Asian topics in English before, I think there's too much at steak for a bundled 5 day AfD. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least one, perhaps more, appears notable. Similiar major libraries in other cities have articles, and it would be biased to remove all of these, because some may not be notable. As such the bulk deletion fails the test of "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately.". Though why most of these can't be covered in a single article I don't know. Nfitz (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz. First of all, the history alone of the Namsan Public Library makes it notable. Bundle-AfDing almost every library in Category:Libraries in Seoul is not practical and very counter productive to the improvement of these articles. These all require through research (in Korean as well as English) to determine their inclusion value. The nom has only described what they see in the articles and make no mention of any attempt to determine the notability of them. Another problem is that all of these were nominated for deletion WITHIN ONE DAY of their creations, giving virtually no chance for editors to improve and expand the articles over time. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all large scale bundled nominations of this type make it next to impossible to give due care and attention to each article listed. Some may well be notable others not so, but to be fair to each article seperate AfD's would be required. RMHED (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle. I am not a big fan of bundling together institutions some of which may be notable and other which mat be not and think that they deserve individual consideration. I have no objection to a merge to a combined article Libraries in Seoul. Smile a While (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and Redirect, consensus is that the article fails notability guidelines on own but per precedent a merge is sensible. Davewild (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Oaks Private School[edit]

Private elementary school. Not eligible for CSD, earlier prod was removed. Elementary schools are generally regarded as non-notable, and a school for 184 students, 108 of whom are pre-schoolers, is no different. Horologium (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kissimmee, Florida#Education per numerous precedents. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many schools have their own article. Most start out as stubs, but then they grow. Most schools, especially private schools, are unique in some way and the article could be edited by someone who knows something about this school to reflect that. --Andrew from NC (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Terriers. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per standing practice with schools as noted by TerriersFan. Townlake (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard A. Houghten[edit]

~~Reads like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)~~ Nomination withdrawn As per request from one of the fine editors in this discussion who is in the midst of rewriting the article, I am withdrawing my nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am posting this from an airport, where I am waiting to board a flight, so I don't have time to do a detailed search for the moment. But a superficial GoogleScholar search produces impressive citation results for this name:[14]: 512, 260, 188, 208, 156, 129, etc. So he might in fact be notable, although the article clearly needs to be re-written. Nsk92 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Poor Nsk92, traveling in Europe... :-) Web of Science lists 356 articles for "Houghten RA", which have been cited 16977 times, giving him an h index of 63. The article is horrible and should be rewritten. AfD is not for that. Please tell me why this person is not notable and why this article should be deleted????? --Crusio (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding WP:PEOPLE: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)." Also, the article has major WP:COI issues (compare the surname of its author to the surname of the subject). However, if anyone would like to volunteer to rewrite it, I will promptly remove the nomination. Merci beaucoup. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure web of science and google scholar citation numbers and the eventual citation weight are acceptable hints that notability exists under WP:PROF. I suspect that the search for "Houghten RA" is coming up with more than one person (356 articles!), but if he has written half that many he meets WP:PROF. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Extremely notable. Professional researchers are notable by their research, and the notability is certified by their peers and expressed through appointments to distinguished positions, and by citations to their articles. It just needs a few paragraph breaks and a list of the most cited articles. "Reads like a [whatever] " is never a reason for deletion, though it is for rewriting. I think I'll add that to WP NOT.DGG (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-keep I'm re-writing it. He's super notable. Protonk (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Deal If you are rewriting, I am withdrawing the nomination. And when it is rewritten, Protonk, please nominate it in WP:DYK. Good job! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WIll do, hoping I can find some good sources beyond difficult and dense biology papers. :) Protonk (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Black (CBC program)[edit]

There is an exact duplicate page already in existence. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Black_%28CBC_Program%29. The only difference is that the letter P in the word program is lower case so this duplicate page should be deleted. Napierk (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the page to a redirect for you. --Ŵïllî§ï$2 (^Talk!/_Cont.) 21:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London Super Tower[edit]

I've nominated this for deletion as it reads kinda like a promotional piece of work. When I tried to find out more about this on Google most links were blogspam or social news linking to them, bar this article and the architects concept page. Indeed the first link states "This building is not likely to be built and the design is more an exercise of architectural imagination." As such, I'm unsure that it deserves an article so thought I'd put it to consensus.Raerth (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The tower is a proposal. Rejectwater (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are notable unbuilt skyscrapers (e.g. The Illinois), this does not appear to be one of them. It's not even a proposal so much as a concept or a parlor game. --Dhartung | Talk 23:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cards in the hat[edit]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, how-to guide, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden's sources. That's two more sources than I could have found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *Sigh*. I have added two sources to demonstrate notability and expect that we could add dozens more if needed. The nomination quite fails to explain why we should not cover this game when we have articles upon thousands of other games, from Acey-deucey to Zoo Tycoon. Why should we discriminate against simple card games? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I further note that this article was nominated for deletion less than 10 minutes after its creation. This is disgraceful. AFD is not a race. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw as I didn't realize we were allowed to have how to guides for card games, but I'd appreciate if someone could explain to me why we have howtos for card games, but not video games? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterize[edit]

Contested prod. Unsourced article about a slang term used in a town north of Toronto. Belongs in the Urban Dictionary, perhaps, but not here. Delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:NEO at best, hoax at worst. I made a cursory effort to find reliable sources mentioning this "commonly used slang term" and came up empty. Townlake (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V. Probably made up by bored teens one day. This article should be peterized from Wikipedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:NFT. JohnCD (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Artene50 (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:NOT#DICT in every way.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SFS Technology[edit]

Lacks WP:N. Prod failed due to removal without explanation by software creator. Chealer (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- insufficient evidence of notability. --SJK (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Five-minute google search turned up no reliable source, much less unreliable sources. --Millbrooky (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Code Geass media. *Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Code Geass albums[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory, and this list is basically just an excuse to have a glut of non-free images and track lists. There is no actual context or content beyond album names and release dates. For anime and manga articles, we generally only have a prose summary of soundtrack releases in the main article, which this one already has in a separate list, List of Code Geass media. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'll first ask nicely that this be withdrawn, because it was quite obviously done in retaliation to being reverted on a unilateral decision. Failing that, merge because I'll agree that it goes somewhere else. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. It was done for the reasons given. After reviewing it again after you reverted my redirect, I realized there was nothing to merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This kind of thing belongs on wikias, not Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Lists of media are a useful resource to readers of these articles. -- Fallacies (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Get rid of any redundant (Seiyu lists) and merge into the media entry, but keep the rest- there's certainly more here than just album names and release dates. Westrim (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main article. Nearly all anime/manga series have a list of media that is usually included in the main page, except for major works that have too many spinoffs to fit. This article can't stand on its own but should instead of deletion be properly merged with the main Code Geass article. There is enough precedence for a possibly weak keep but I do not believe that this article warrants it. the_one092001 (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above. Probably doesn't deserve a delete, but not enough on its own. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 06:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sinclair official top 100[edit]

Copyright violation of the magazine's intellectual property, this is a subjective list and not neutral statistics. Was prodded and prod2'd, but the prod inappropriately removed. Corvus cornix_talk 20:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Firstly, the article text has not been reproduced verbatim, only the list of names (none of which are © YS) and their relative positions, and I for one don't see how such a list can be copyrighted. Secondly, this list is an historical part of the Spectrum scene. Thirdly, by its very nature no such list can be anything but subjective, nor does this list claim to be; and I don't see how this reduces its value as a historical document. -- Korax1214 (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if the names of the games are copyrighted to Sinclair, the list is. Corvus cornix_talk 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the prodder of this article. The copyright is perhaps debatable, but this is a subjective list, which is in general copyrighted (a factual list, like the list of the presidents of France or the sales of cars per month, is not copyrighted, since anyone with access to the sources should objectively come to the same list). This copyright problem might perhaps be solved by not reproducing the full list and adding commentary and external reliable sources about the list. However, it is unclear if the list has been discussed in external sources (unlike e.g. the Forbes 500 or Time 100, which usually gets discussed in lots of newspapers and magazines). If this list is not being discussed by other reliable, independent sources, then we shouldn't have an article on it. The list (not the article) can still be used as a reference in articles about Sinclair / ZX Spectrum games of course, this is not depending on this AfD. Fram (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was the original contributor, I don't really mind if it stays or not, Fram is quite right in saying that it can still be used as an external reference. However, I didn't want to see the list removed from Wikipedia without a discussion first. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I concur with Marasmusine. It (the URL or magazine issue/page number) can be referenced in the Your Sinclair article; it doesn't need its own Wikipedia article. MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an independently notable piece of work. -Rushyo (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete, and a good case was made for the Knightmares being integral to the series, and for this information making the Code Geass article too long. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knightmare Frame[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#Plot, WP:WAF. Article is pure plot and unsourced WP:OR. This level of "history" and plot detail is simply unneeded. What a "knightmare" is can be quite nicely summed up in two to three sentences. The rest is all redundant plot repetition. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I hate to use an other crap argument, this page is like a like of characters or the exhaustive lists of gundams (three I think, I merely skimmed). It provides a resource that aids in the understanding of the series. It isn't OR, as they are general details. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant fancruft and OR, all entirely non-notable. Doceirias (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:JNN are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is, in fact, the primary reason for articles being deleted. Fanboyish love of indescriminate information collection does not justify keeping articles like this one. Doceirias (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No specific reason as to why this article is non-notable has been provided. The fancruft explanation has been bandied about quite a bit, but that also falls when compared to similar series and their level of detail. Examples are needed to show that this level of information is somehow excessive when compared to other lists of mecha for other anime/manga series.the_one092001 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bad faith nom per WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Jtrainor (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This comment from an editor who didn't like me tagging "his article" with issues who went behind a bunch of my edits making the same false accusation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've never edited this article before. Jtrainor (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking Mobile Suit Gundam 00, which you keep detagging for no valid reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not original research, but derived from the shows' Japanese official website. It's notable as many of the knighmare's are specific to individual characters and important to the way they act. Their capabilities often directly affect the course of the story(ex. some can fly, most can't). Sure, some details could be sifted out, but what will it hurt if the article stays? Collectonian, you created an article detailing the names, relationships and major actions of meerkats that is now a featured list: is this list really that far from your's? Someone put much effort into this, and as someone who has only just begun the series I can say that it really helped me understand it better. There's no other resource I can find like this in english, and I can't read Japanese. please keep.Westrim (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. The Meerkat list is sourced not just to the primary source, but to third party sources throughout (including national news papers). It is a single character list as is allowed for a television series, and the topic of those meerkats as a whole meets all of the requirements this page does not. This is "maybe" sourced from the official site (no actual evidence given to support that), and the level of detail is beyond accessive and unnecessary. Mecha in anime is far from a unique concept needing a full article to explain. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not maybe, is, and that's a sourcing issue, not a deletion issue. Just because mecha are not a unique concept does not make all mecha fundamentally the same. That argument has about as many holes as your claim that an anime film which uses the same characters doesn't need an article. This is the same concept as List of Omnitrix aliens: these are part character-specific, part generalized entries, only different from a character list in that they're supplements to the characters. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that was a totally unnecessary side comment (and despite your view, several such films have since been merged because they do fail WP:MOS-AM's requirements for having separate articles). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have said it was sourced from the official page unless there was evidence, which there is: right there at the bottom of the page, in references. Again, I can't understand it when I go to it, but it looks an awful lot like a list of the knightmares to me. For below, both of those series have been around for several times longer than this one has, with greater attention paid to them- it's only natural that they'd have a lot more third party references than Code Geass, especially since it was only released here a couple months ago. I suspect that there are plenty of refences to be found, but since I don't read Japanese I can't find them.Westrim (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 6 refs in the whole article, with two to official sites. That doesn't give evidence that the entire page is sourced from the official site. If every last thing here came from that site, though, wouldn't that mean it was WP:COPYVIO (note, I have NOT checked the translation, just questioning in general). One source is an image, which fails WP:RS on all counts. Two are episodes. Again, the final and only real question is, does the topic of "Knightmare Frames of Code Gaess" have significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. If not, then it is not a notable topic. If this is a list of characters, then they belong in List of Code Geass characters, which already exists.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a problem with the sources, then a source tag should be applied, not a deletion tag. As other editors have pointed out below, it is possible to summarize everything in this entire encyclopedia in a few sentences. The United States of America could be summarized as "A representative democracy located on the North American continent founded in 1776 when it rebelled against Great Britain. It is currently considered a global superpower and is involved in an occupation of Iraq and several other foreign regions." That gives the general gist of the object in question, but is by no means a complete description. This article has very little to do with the plot of the series aside from the fact that the Frames are used in the series. Other series also contain a list of mecha that are clearly separate. The Gundam list does not include Evangelion units even though they are both "giant robots" and both exist separately detailing their contents. It is true that there is a lack of separate sources, but that warrants a source tag, not a delete tag. As a new series, it is expected that little information would be available, but this was the same with the original release of both Gundam and Evangelion. General standards shown in other more established articles call for a separate list of mecha used if those mecha are central to the plot, as these are. the_one092001 (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is no different from the lists for other series such as Gundam Mobile Suits, or Evangelion Angels/Eva Units. Every series that has a significant number of plot-related vehicles has at least a list that provides some information about them. While these vehicles do not warrant individual pages, they are collectively important enough to have a list related to them since they are such an important part of the series. the_one092001 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not being a valid argument, both of those series have enough extensive, third party sources that they are likely to be notable. Other such series, such as Escaflowne, did not and its mecha list was also properly removed. The extensive detail was not necessary at all there, nor is it here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an overuse of shortcuts to policy as stated in WP:BASH. As it states, arguments from analogies are perfectly acceptable. There is also the fact that BOTH are essays, neither are guidelines or policies. I am aware of the result of the Escaflowne debate, but the fact remains that Escaflowne is a done deal. It's finished, so there will likely be no more sources released. However, for a series like Code Geass that is still under production, it is quite likely that more sources will be released that can be used in the future. In its early stages, the List of Cosmic Era mobile units also suffered from a lack of sources, but sources were later published and cited. In this case, the lack of sources warrants verify tags and possibly cleanup tags, not deletion tags. the_one092001 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Collectonian seems to be on a rampage of POINTy noms due to people reverting her tagging on articles. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, another unsupported, uncalled for false claim. Can you not find an actual valid reason for keeping that you have to do a pointless personal attack with no real reason to do so? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This articles is much too detailed. There is a section about these on the main CG page; merge a short, concise summary of relevant information to that section and redirect. If the CG wikia wants the information, a transwiki before-hand is advised. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the reasons that Collectonian gives are valid. Non-primary sources have been difficult to find in my searches (clarification: reliable non-primary sources, i.e. not youtube, other wikis, or fan sites). Tranwiki to a more appropriate place if desired. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article could be improved, this is a legitimate spinout article. After all, one could briefly describe what a starship was in a few sentences, but it's perfectly acceptable to have more information, such as in List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. Edward321 (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of collectonian's points are not valid.
First: Anything can be summed up in two to three sentences, but that does not mean it does not deserve its own article. Knightmare frames are different from other mechas and deserve to be detailed, in both its history and its different models, much like the Chicago White Sox deserve to be detailed in its history and its players. If there was only a summary in Major League Baseball, that the Chicago White Sox are an American league baseball team that plays in Chicago, then this Encyclopedia would be a laughing stock. There has been numerous precedent in WIkipedia regarding vehicles like the Knightmare Frame for both fictional and non-fictional work that support this , meaning that there is a wide consensus among editors that this is acceptable.
Second: All articles regarding fictional work have to have references to the plot of said work to show how it is relevant, so references to the plot is expected. This article is more than a plot summery. It contains information that is not in the plot, and details specifications of specific Knightmare frames and the ways they are related.
Third. According to WP:NOT#Plot, it states, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them." Because this anime is relatively new, it does not have as many third party sources detailing it. Some of the information is detailed from specific episodes and some are from imagines of magazines. Each of these is able to be referenced. To be able to add the information needed to support the article, editors use such referancable material because there is a lack of third party sources that fit the letter of the rules. This is in the spirit of the rules. There is numerous precedent of support this throughout hundreds if not thousands of articles in this encyclopedia, which shows a general consensus among editors that when there is a lack of sources that fit exactly the letter of the rules, using other sources that are able to be referenced and are relatively reliable, fits the spirit of the rules. JohnWycliff (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really I dont see the difference in this article and other articles in discribing a type of weapon or a class of a Starship like in StarWars, it also contains alot of information regarding the subject of Knightmare Frames, which could be useful to some of the readers.--FunkMasterFlex3 (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not feel that the deletion of the article contributes anything to WP as an encyclopedic resource; it is of use to readers who want to know this information. -- Fallacies (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any sort of notability. As it stands, the whole article is an excessive plot summary that fails WP:NOT#PLOT by being entirely in-universe. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure people realize that the article is about a fictional topic. Therefore, all information regarding the topic a) originates from a single primary source and b) relates to a single created universe, much like with most works of fiction. Regarding the opinion that the article is plot summery, the article includes a lot of information that is not part of the plot. As for notability, please direct your attention to Wikipedia:Notability (films). Code Geass has won numerous awards including The best TV anime series award from the sixth annual Tokyo Anime Awards held at the 2007 Tokyo International Anime Fair and The Animage Anime Grand Prix, making it very notable. I doubt anyone familiar with the series would disagree with the opinion that Knightmare Frames are a significant important part of the show. As a result, that makes the topic notable as well. JohnWycliff (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that this is an article about a fictional subject. And yes, I know that Code Geass is notable, but that does not make every aspect of the series notable. Notability of the series does not give you carte blanche to create whatever articles you want concerning the series. All articles within the series have to prove their notability independently, which requires coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. And even past that, this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being completely plot summary - all the details are in-universe, and thus related to the plot. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this article is "completely plot" while this is not. Or this. The centrality of Knightmare Frames within the series means that this article does not violate standards for notability. As for the "plot" summary, plot details are only listed insofar as they describe the use or development of the Frame, such as listing that the Shinkiro's Druid System was salvaged by Rakshata from the wrecked Gawain. For the most part, the article does a good job of describing the Frames in question without getting too heavily into the plot. The parts that have too much plot should be revised, not deleted. Revision is needed in the place of unnecessary plot, not deletion. the_one092001 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sephiroth voted to delete that second one, so you can't say he's not trying to voice his opinion. Regardless, you're not about to convince him to change his opinion, and the reverse is likely true as well. Also, since there's a fairly big divide on this position, arguing about it here with the same tired reasoning (back and forth "WP:This and that" throwing) is at best unproductive. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not going to convince him, but I feel obligated to respond as he did to my !vote (although I'm quite aware it's pointless :p). In any case, the article is completely plot because it is completely in-universe. It talks about the subject from an in-universe perspective and all of the information in the article is directly related to the plot - there is no commentary/critical reception/cultural impact of the subject from reliable sources independent of the topic. As such, even if you're not going to go for WP:NOT#PLOT (which it does fail as it stands), then it asserts zero notability and should be deleted in that regard. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Winds seem to be swaying in the opposite direction, but that'sbeside the point. If only the WP:AVOIDSPLIT/WP:SPINOUT contradiction didn't exist, then this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Like a list of characters, I feel this is an instance where optimal organization of content outweighs demonstrating independent notability. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't a list of characters, it's a list of objects. Do you need to cover every last Knightmare Frame for a reader to understand the story? Probably not. There's a time where these articles also constitute undue weight that a single character list does not, as its existence is more strongly supported by WP:SS and can be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. This entire list is excessive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 15:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you and I will have to agree to disagree. It seems to me that a series which predominantly focuses on a certain set of items should have a complete (that is not to say excessive, merely comphrensive) list of said items. It's like making an article about Power Rangers in general and not having a list of their mechs to turn to. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so. But hey, look at this way. There's no way in hell this could be feasibly be rewritten in a manner that would allow it to pass at FLC/FAC (not sure which format it would take), while List of Naruto characters is prepping for FLC and I know that I could feasibly rewrite World of Naruto for a GA run. There's a good way to include the information in an encyclopedic manner, and having it all in one article isn't the way to go. It's roughly the equivalent of the jutsu lists we used to have at the Naruto articles, and even the present article (Jutsu (Naruto)) should be merged into World of Naruto. The in-universe context of these things is so specific that you'll never get adequate independent sourcing, and as this isn't a character list, I don't think that's the way to go. Also, judging from the present state of the article, there's a crapload of information that can be cut out, summarized better, and otherwise reduced, and I don't see why you can't include a description of the concept at Code Geass and then include the relevant Knightmare Frames with the respective characters for instance. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you the FLC improbability. It's not my thing, nor, I would hazard, is it the thing of any of the other common editors for this series. That and the series is relatively new in dub, so getting reception/creation sources is difficult. Naruto's in filler hell now so it has had a while to collect such things. Even good article seems, at least in the near future, unlikely. However, not every article gets to those points. Some are likely never to. Doesn't mean we should get rid of them. The jutsu lists were far more excessive, loaded with one-or-two-offs (plot no jutsu) and split into four parts. They had it coming really. This is a much smaller list, and the potential expansion rate drops off as time passes. The problem with summarizing character-specific mechs here or there, the fact that I merged most of the characters not withstanding, is there are still a number of "all-purpose" mechs: used by multiple people, or variants on the type so used. That and, in at least one case, characters go from mech A to mech B. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As TRP said above, the prevalence and importance of Knightmare Frames within the series means that they are nearly as important as the characters. Suzaku is nothing without his Lancelot, and such a plot-important unit is something I'd like to know about. I don't need to know its exact height or weight, but I would like to know a bit more about it. As I said, I read these articles before I started watching the series, and they were very helpful in telling me what I needed to know. Imagine trying to learn about Evangelion without an article on the Evangelion units themselves, or Gundam without a list of mobile suits. We don't need a list of unimportant units (like listing the Britannian tanks or Japanese destroyers seen being destroyed early on), but the Knightmare Frames that are prevalent throughout the series deserve mention. the_one092001 (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the importance within the series, but my same argument is largely the same thing I just said to TRP. Note that removing this article doesn't mean the information itself gets deleted. There's simply better ways to organize the material that is more encyclopedic and applies the appropriate weight towards the topic. Take for instance in List of Naruto characters that the characters' abilities are summarized in their respective entries. There's no reason you can't take List of Code Geass characters, provide the same treatment, and end up with an article that has a realistic chance of going at FLC. Clumping giant loads of in-universe information into one article isn't the write way to go around things, and the article as it stands is just that. It fails WP:WAF miserably for being completely in-universe, WP:NOT#PLOT for the same reason, and WP:WEIGHT for describing these in-universe concepts with excessive detail. You get a better treatment of the topic if you say include the information along with the relevant characters in the character list, which provides appropriate weight, satisfies WAF and NOT#PLOT, and produces a nice, encyclopedic article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a separate article that concerns Naruto Jutsus. The overall concept and popular/important jutsus used by multiple characters are listed under Jutsu (Naruto). A separate list for the Knightmare Frames is more practical and useful because 1.)The character list is already too long, 2.)Some characters use multiple Frames, like Lelouch who goes through a Sutherland, Burai, the Gawain, and the Shinkiro, 3.)Certain variants are best listed together, such as the Lancelot, Lancelot Conquista, and Lancelot Club. A single article can give background on the Frames themselves, while also listing the information in a single place instead of scattering it in an article that is already too long. Imagine trying to list the mobile suits used in Gundam in their respective characters' pages. Athrun would have gone through enough suits to make a separate article for, and someone needs to determine where the information for the oft-seen ZAKU and GINN's go. Better to put it in one place to keep the rest of the articles clean. the_one092001 (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the discussion is leaning towards keep. Westrim (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is to give the writers a chance to clean the article up - deal with the multiple issues and provide evidence of notability. If the article remains in it's current state, it should be deleted. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is already well sourced as character lists go, especially anime character lists and mecha lists. Additionally, I believe that better sourcing is in fact possible, since information about Knightmare Frames has been published in Japanese magazines such as Newtype. On top of that, it should be taken into account that the show in question isn't over yet - there's still three more months before the show ends and the new material slows to a stop; I'd wager, for instance, that there'll be another couple of related magazine articles before the show ends. As for the article's general quality, it should improve once the show ends, stopping the crowd of people rushing to add their thoughts as soon as a new episode airs without regard for policy. Well, actually, it'll improve for certain if this AfD fails just like the Gundam articles do, since not only does the AfD bring up ideas on how to improve the article, but it draws a lot of attention from people who might know enough to improve the article but don't normally pay any attention to Wikipedia. Well, to summarize, I believe that the article can be and will be improved significantly if it isn't deleted, and it will improve more as the show continues. If the article (especially the sourcing) is still unsatisfactory a month or two after the show ends, on the other hand, then it might be worth another AfD - if this article isn't sufficiently sourced six months from now, it probably never will be. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, mostly WP:NOR (very little of this content is sourced) and WP:NOT#PLOT (huge amount of in-universe information with no demostrable relevance in the real world); also indicates a fanboyish zeal for collecting cruft that reflects badly on Wikipedia as a project. Sandstein 07:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a sourcing issue, and there is no objectively defined guideline to determine what does or doesn't qualify as a violation of WP:PLOT. As of now, the entire no plot! argument seems like a misunderstanding of the text of the guideline, which is explicitly related to not having an article composed solely of a plot summary — that is, a sequential retelling of a story, and not simply "describing elements or concepts within a work of fiction." -- Fallacies (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nomination per WP:Point. Yzak Jule (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bad faith nor pointy about it. Such false, baseless accusations are, however uncivil. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your above keep is more in trouble via WP:Point then this nomination --T-rex 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no usable content. Wikipedia is not the place for this level of plot detail. --T-rex 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Referenced content is almost always useable somehow or other. Wikipedia as a paperless encyclopedia has a lot of leeway as to how much it can cover. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How do we determine what is of use to readers and what isn't? -- Fallacies (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe plot summary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is primarily a character list, not a plot summary. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just a restructuring of events which take place in the fictional universe to be able to organize those events by character, instead of a chronological ordering. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find Knightmares a key part of Code Geass. The characters and the series as a whole would be much different if Knightmares were not there. I have no idea where we would place the information, but deleting something that has such a vital role in the series would be a rather paculiar idea. If every series of Gundam has a list of the Moblie Suits, it would make sense to allow Code Geass to have the same. Besides, I have no idea where placement would be. Placing it on the main page would either make the section lacking for what is a key part of the series should have or make the entire page too long. Fenrir-of-the-Shadows (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was split and merge. There isn't a clear consensus to delete, but there's a very clear one that the article shouldn't survive in its present form. If there's sufficient sourcing for a section, either break it out separately or merge it back into the parent, please.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Settings and themes of Code Geass[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#Plot, WP:WAF. Article is pure plot and unsourced original research and personal opinion. The topic of the settings of Code Geass does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable third party sources. The themes of the series belongs in the main article and ONLY if it can be sourced to reliable sources, not people's personal interpretations of the series. Nothing in this article is salvagable nor appropriate for merging to the main as it is all unsourced, excessive detail, and would add nothing to the series in terms of encyclopedic content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#1 -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Themes can not be sourced to the series itself as it is interpretation and therefore all OR. The settings is excessive detail and a huge indiscriminate glut of info. We have a section on the world, then on character abilities (not related to settings nor theme), then back to individual countries within the world and their major cities, then a history segement, then technology, etc etc. The first anime series was 26 episodes, the second is slated to be 26. This article Bleach is a much larger series and its settings are properly, and adequately covered in its main article without this frankly ridiculous amount of detail. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#2 -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR: declaring something non-canon. Who decided that? Where is the source? "Unlike the Holy Empire of Britannia, it is more democratic and supports equal human rights" says who? Please provide the book, with specific page number, where this is explicitly stated. "History of the World" where is the source giving this exact timeline, and I don't mean extrapolation from the series, or deduction by doing any sort of calculations. It must be explicitly given. "Corporate Sponsorship" - entire section is OR based on interpretation that the inclusion of logos is a sign of sponsorship. Also, all those sources you added are not accurate, as you don't give any page numbers to confirm anything (and they really are NOT confirmable by the vast majority of English readers as you sourced to the Japanese novels.

No, the novels would not be independant from the source, it is part of the overall work. Yes, some of Bleach is sourced to the manga volumes, because that is where the creator discusses the work, however, you are comparing apples and oranges, and badly at that. No one is questioning the notability of the series Code Geass. Just as with Bleach, the series exists and has significant coverage in third party sources to indicate its notability. Bleach's settings, however, had no such coverage, hence all four of those articles being merged into the main. If you can't see that this article is nothing but plot summary (only further confirmed by the only source you could add was, in fact, the novels, that it fails WP:WAF by being excessive in-universe plot and fictional details, and that it fails both WP:FICT and WP:N by having NO significant third party coverage, that isn't something I can't help you with. Even your fellow editors have already told you that the article is beyond glutted with plot (not to mention stating ridiculously obvious stuff, and being repetitive). Yes, there must be coverage apart from the publishers. Reviewers discussing the settings in-depth (not 1-2 sentences in passing), academic papers written about the settings, coverage in magazines and books, etc. There is NONE of that for this series (nor for MOST series), which is why settings is rarely, if ever, an appropriate break out. Again, this much detail is NOT necessary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing an overview of series, not a fan guide to the minute details about every last aspect of a work. Readers unfamiliar with the series do not need know all of this to have a basic understanding of the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#3 -- Fallacies (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bleach should be C, and I never claimed it was perfect. I was pointing specifically to its setting section (which as you noted, has multiple sources). Please point out a newsblog source (and do not say ANN, which is not a newsblog, it is a valid WP:RS by all qualifications). Again, your missed the actual point that the amount of setting information in this article is beyond excessive. I'm fine with the novels being used as sources, if they aren't licensed (which looking at the series they are not). However, it seems from the article the ANIME is the primary, work, so per the guidelines of the project, that should be the main source and main content. Secondary works should be used for some supplementation, but this seems to give them undue weight. They aren't even given as much attention in the main article.

Renaming it wouldn't fix any of the issues. Relevant setting information appears to already existing in the main article, however if you feel there is something in this article that is missing, then merging is a valid alternative to deletion, but I am not seeing any reason to keep this article at all. Merge a few bits maybe, or delete, but not keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#4 -- Fallacies (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to continue misinterpreting my remarks, and you are misinterpreting all that. Yes, my original justifications all stands. To be a spinout, it would actually have to be something that would have belonged in the main article and was spunout because of size issues. This wouldn't belong in the main in this form, and if it were properly written, size wouldn't be an issue. This "require sources independent from the original subject matter, which as per the above discussion cannot be found for most anime anyways" is blatantly false, as is shown by many other anime and manga articles. If it has no third party sources, the entire series article would be at Afd (and yes, we have deleted series articles for works that have no third party coverage). Do not use your inability to find information as an overall statement that they just don't exist, nor your bad understanding of the laws in Japan. Again, if there are no third party sources, which you yourself have now admitted to multiple times, then topic is NOT notable. That isn't something you just brush aside with "oh well, there are no sources, but I still say its notable because I say so." And this isn't speedy deletion, its AfD so that line doesn't apply at all, nor does preserve. Transwiki if a valid option for preservation, and that's already proposed below. Your attempts to excuse the valid reasons for this deletion discussion do not apply. And please stop changing your comments so dramatically after they have been replied to...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#5 -- Fallacies (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you admit you can not read Japanese. Have you checked every last book on anime and manga in general? Checked every magazine article about the series? etc? Other series do have such discussions, this one does not. Nor did I say they have to only be in Japanese, though with this being an apparently unlicensed series, all the most reason all this is beyond excessive and lacking in notability as obviously there are little to no English sources on it either. And you can't find Japanese ones to back any notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#6 -- Fallacies (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of independence DOES disqualify the sources for purposes of determining notability. Never said they couldn't use to verify, but they do NOT provide notability. That's the pint you again, have missed. They must have licenses for reprinting the work, not for discussing/reviewing it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too long. Moved to User:Fallacies/Afd_settings#7 -- Fallacies (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of my initial proposals hold up. YOU are the defender are required to find the surces. I've already said they do not exist. It isn't notable. The entire article is plot. Plot includes the fictional discussions of the fictional history of the countries, the timelines, etc. I'm done answering though, as you are just repeating the same arguments over and over, which basically says "I know it isn't notable and I don't care." And a warning is not necessary before AfDing an article, nor is tagging it for notability. I only tag articles for notability issues if it might actually have some. This has none, period. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say all of it is plot. It is common for anime series articles to include a list of settings, and as such the list of countries and common locations is not something that needs to be deleted. This includes the first half of the article. Definitions of terms are also very common, leaving the chronology and corporate sponsor list somewhat questionable. Other series such as the Gundam article collection create a separate article for a plot summary, so I believe that the timeline should be moved to a new article that also has a plot summary of the first season. The corporate sponsor part can be deleted as long as Cheese-kun is mentioned on C.C.'s character page, which I believe it is. As an example, Gundam SEED has a separate article for the plotline of the first series (the First Bloody Valentine War), a separate article for locations, a separate article for factions, and a separate article for mobile weapons. A separate article for locations and factions may be in this case unnecessary, and it may be possible to merge the list of vehicles present in this article with the Knightmare Frame article and instead retitle it "Vehicles of Code Geass." This creates more concise articles with more appropriate titles and brings it into line with the general standards seen in other series. This bears a striking similarity to Brian G. Crawford's anti-Gundam crusade; calling the entire thing unnotable because of its nature as fiction (which is by no means a good rationale). the_one092001 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) I posed the challenge because of such discrediting comments regarding my competency as an editor as, "Do not use your inability to find information as an overall statement that they just don't exist, nor your bad understanding of the laws in Japan," "You are just repeating the same arguments over and over, which basically says I know it isn't notable and I don't care," "Yes, but you admit you can not read Japanese," and edit comments of questionable civility such as "hit the brick wall some more." The challenge was motivated as a civil request for you to back up these remarks as something besides a personal attack.

The fact is, the specific subject matter at hand -- terminology in an anime series (or for that matter, a piece of fiction) -- is not something you will find discussed in any 3rd party resources that we can objectively recognize as reliable. The terminology and settings of a fictitious work can only be documented "reliably" by the original creators, and is not in general a subject matter that is likely to be discussed or reviewed by a 3rd party in a manner we can consider "valid." In the few instances that a party normally unaffiliated with an anime creator actually produces a "reliable" text documenting terminology, it is typically with explicit license of intellectual materials from the creator, as in the Evangelion Concordance. Only in this sort of case can we presume that the resource is indeed "reliable." That's why I said "reliable 3rd party resources on fictitious terminology do not exist." The vast majority of "reliable materials on terminology in fiction" used in WP are not 3rd party, with the possible exception of stuff like the HPL.

To begin with, thus, asserting that a true 3rd party resource as the only thing that may legitimately establish notability for an article on terminology and settings within a fictitious canon is unreasonable; and a lot of terminology articles (like this one) in well-established WikiProjects such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars consequently never cite any 3rd party sources at all. This isn't a matter of simply one or two other cases where no 3rd party resources are cited. By your standards, this is an entire category of articles that qualify for immediate AfD. Are we to delete them all and render Wikipedia useless to interested readers? Your argument resembles WP:CRUFTCRUFT.

Taking a closer look at the policies, the current article content satisfies the text of WP:N's "Presumed notability," "Significant coverage," "Reliable resources," technically "Secondary sources" guidelines (being that manga, novels, the official website, etc. are in fact "one step removed" from the anime). "Independent sources" is the only explicit violation, and as per the circumstances above, these aren't likely to exist. You have said that "I know it's unnotable," but in fact, I don't. I feel that being a useful resource for people that want to understand Code Geass, it should be worthy of note -- however, the circumstance of the article being about "terminology and settings" makes it extremely difficult to satisfy the text of the "Independent" requirement. Further (to repeat yet again) the WP:SS advisory justifies the existence of such an article. WP:FICT says, "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." As per the satisfaction of "secondary" above, where is lack of notability?

A lot of these regulations you cite violations for are also interlinked with a supposed infringement of WP:PLOT. This guideline provides absolutely no objective means officially recognized by the majority of the community to determine what does or doesn't qualify as a indiscriminant plot dump. On what basis do you determine that this is "all plot," and why does it matter?

In regard to your assertion that this article "would add nothing to the series in terms of encyclopedic content,", please refer to this. On this note, I am retiring from the discussion for at least two or three days for a business trip. I hope sincerely that this article isn't simply vanished by the time of my return.

-- Fallacies (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything sourced to the main article, Delete the rest. There is not reason for this to be an independent article, and lack of sourcing IS grounds for deletion. Doceirias (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, maybe weak delete Complicated though this series may be, I do recognize the fact that it is woefully bloated, which you haven't exactly been helpful in keeping in check Fallacies. This is why I was trying to keep it slim. A large portion of it is superfluous (cities, towns, Narita, most of the terms). it could be knocked down to the basics and integrated into the main article. However, outright deletion won't help. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to http://codegeass.wikia.com, then weak delete or merge. Please give me time! 75.156.83.110 (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although this article itself is very weak, I think we should improve it instead of deleting it. - plau (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then Merge and Rename. While very expansive and informative, the article is too broad and should be divided and placed into specific articles. There are no "themes" listed here, although the settings list is a valid addition. The different parts should be split up into specific articles for settings, plot, and terms, in keeping with standard practices.the_one092001 (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom. Jtrainor (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This comment from an editor who didn't like me tagging "his article" with issues who went behind a bunch of my edits making the same false accusation. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is a summarization of the setting and theme of the work in question based off the primary source. Seems to be encyclopedic and scholarly to this cat. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article gives a much too bloated and detailed description. A concise summary of relevant and cited information should be merged into relevant other articles, such as the main article, Code Geass. A transwiki before merging would be acceptable, and advised if the CGW wants the information. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now) - There is a lot of content here. It should be properly reduced through edits. If it is then small enough to be merged then I'm all for it, but as is, bad idea, because of WP:SIZE. The article is pretty tough to parse through and find what is worthwhile and what isn't. A proper merge of this content would take a lot of work, and an improper merge into the main article would just allow for article rot. For now, restraining this information to (a single) subpage is a decent compromise. Transwiki would also be a good idea to some appropriate project, as I'm sure someone is interested in this (hopefully the author at least). -Verdatum (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki - On review, with the exception of the section on corporate sponsorship, I see nothing but in-universe information. People interested in this level of detail should be visiting a fansite, or just watching the show themselves. -Verdatum (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has alot of helpful information on the subject of Code Geass which many people may need and find very helpful, myself included. I think that it should be improved, not deleted.--FunkMasterFlex3 (talk) 08:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - a quick look at the sources suggests that it is mostly original research (i.e. it's sourced to the manga and anime). On the subject of notability, you may be able to spin the topic out of its parent (presumably Code Geass#Settings and Code Geass#Themes) by using developer statements and companion novels. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Souring to the primary work doesn't automatically make it original research. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 14:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say synthesis, which is a subset of OR. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That either, though I'll agree some of it probably is. However, for the most part it's just a big pile of relatively useless facts. Even on this scale, stating facts isn't synthesis. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 14:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main danger in citing the fiction itself is to fall into the synthesis trap. For example of a recent dispute I've been aware of, a gun in the Doctor Who episode "Silence in the Library" had the same effect (visual and fictional) as a previous gun from "The Empty Child", but saying so could stray into synthesis - though the dispute was settled when an official source linking the two explicitly were found. I think multiple fiction citations should be used only when there is an explicit link which precludes synthesis. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in principal, and I remember that discussion. Still feel it should have been a matter of common sense, but the source solved that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the sake of briefness I will only address the reasons Collectonian gave for nominating this article, plus one other comment I read before deciding to weigh in. First, I must disagree with the unsourced and Original Research assertions. There are 49 sources listed and although the do not cover everything, that's grounds for a source tag, not outright deletion. From reading samples of the rest, I would say that the OR statement is also unfounded. Everything that I read that I had reached in the anime directly reflected the facts stated on the show. Collectonian quoted the article during one of her rebuttals "Unlike the Holy Empire of Britannia, it is more democratic and supports equal human rights", about the EU, and asked where it was supported. I believe someone has edited it to show the source, but a character stated in episode six "What became of the EU, who claimed that all are equal?". Seems like pretty firm support to me. Second, On what basis do you say that there is little third party info? Unfortunately there is little listed right now, but I got around one and a half million hits searching for it in japanese. Just because we can't read it doesn't mean that the info isn't there? The rest of your nomination statement seems to be based on a rather dismissive attitude- really, there's absolutely nothing in this article that can be used elsewhere if it was merged, the whole thing should be tossed? I'm sorry but that attitude is hard to work with. I'm sorry about any others who question your competence, but what they say about you should have no bearing on your thoughts on the article itself. Wikipedia's goal is to be impartial and unbiased, after all. Westrim (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the sources are sourced to the primary works, with a huge chunk of the references being to a WIKI. Wikipedia was also being used as a reference. Unless it was directly said or shown in the episodes or novels, its interpretation and therefore OR. And yes, it should be tossed. We are not a fictional series guide, and this sort of stuff be of interest to fans of these series. Someone wanting an overview wouldn't care about 95% of it at all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, providing an overview of a topic, not the minute details about something that is not even relevant to anything within the series, much less nothing that isn't even worth discussing by reliable sources in the real world. There are only TWO third party sources that are not wikis (pretty much auto fails WP:RS). The topic is NOT notable in any way shape or form. To be partial and unbiased, all the "I like it" should also be discounted, if valid, policy and guideline based reasonings are considered to not be "impartial." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then understand that I read this entire group of articles before I ever saw the series. I was made aware by a friend that it would be broadcast on tv, and due to their recommendation I decided to check it out. As a college student intending to become a history teacher, the alternate history perspective shown was of great interest. As a tech-phile, I appreciated the depth of the knightmare article. I defend it based on that initial impression, not out of blind fan love. One does not have to be a fan to appreciate this article, just someone seeking information on it- some, like me, want more than others, like you, perhaps, do. That doesn't mean that we should delete what you personally don't find useful. Oh, and to the fictional series guide comment- yes, we are. Wikipedia is to be a encyclopedia where, quoting Wikipedia:about "Many visitors come to this site to acquire knowledge, others to share knowledge." If that knowledge happens to be on fictional topic, so be it. I don't find you article on the relationships of meerkats to be useful, despite having seen the show and liking documentaries in general- I wouldn't dream of deleting it, though. Again if its sources that you have a problem with, then leave the source tag, but don't just delete it. The only reason that we can't find any third party discussion of it is that its new- all we have to go on are english preview materials. Again, lack of support that you can understand (japanese websites)or lack due to newness does not equal delete. Please keep the article. Westrim (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - plau (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - excessive weight and detail given to this topic, which is better represented as part of the main article. As it stands, there is no exceptional notability (no notability at all asserted even, as there is no coverage from reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to justify a spinout article), and all of the present sources are first party. As such, the content should be trimmed, summarized, and merged back into Code Geass. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Wow. Now this is some long read. I agree with trimming, since (quite a few) bits of info are really not important. Not quite sure how this article to be summarised, since there's just a lot of subheadings with minimal text each. I agree with Westrim that it doesn't take a fan to appreciate this article. I am not against a merge, but with the bulk of the useful info here, the main page will become VERY long. Looking at the discussion, I'd say for people to suggest and agree upon sections that can be cut and see how long it would be, but people will most likely say "the whole thing!" or something like that. And attacking Collectonian won't solve the issue. --nyoro~! Highwind888 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the merging aspect, a lot of this article, and I mean a hell of a lot of this article (we're talking two-thirds at least, in terms of kb), will get omitted. All the cities, most of the terms, the secondary Geass listing; all gone. Most of it isn't really necessary, and it can be summarized in a fairly concise manner on the main page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: It is indeed a long article, and it could use a lot of trimming and rewriting for things that are very minor, but outright deletion is not needed. If a third of it can be used as The Rogue Penguin says, then I am not against merging, but I do feel that the main article will become very, very long. Fenrir-of-the-Shadows (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split and Merge: This article is a mess, there's no way around it. It's ridiculous - it's a mishmash listing of everything. Unique terms, locations, history...it really just looks like this article was a dumping ground for every single piece of Code Geass-related information that didn't fit into an existing article. Some of the sections (such as "Geass") are weak now but might deserve their own articles once all the related information is revealed the show is over; some of them (such as "Corporate Sponsorship") ought to be merged into an existing article, and some of them (such as "Terminology") ought to just be deleted. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Dumping ground of unconnected plot summaries with no apparent real-world relevance. Salient points may be summarised in a plot section in the main article. Sandstein 07:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides timeline, where are the plot summaries? -- Fallacies (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith nom per WP:Point. Yzak Jule (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing bad faith nor pointy about it. Such false, baseless accusations are, however uncivil and add nothing to the actual discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 10:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this level of plot information does not belong here --T-rex 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia as a paperless encyclopedia has a lot of leeway as to how much it can cover. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire no plot! argument seems like a misunderstanding of the text of WP:PLOT, which is explicitly related to not having an article composed solely of a plot summary — that is, a sequential retelling of a story, and not simply "describing elements or concepts within a work of fiction." -- Fallacies (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Cheadle[edit]

non-notable. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found this on a cursory Google search, she's got a few Google News hits too for a variety of things - some surfing, some gossip. She sort of fits ATHLETE in that she's been a pro surfer sponsored by Billabong and competed in high-level tournaments... and she's had a few small acting parts that have led to some notoriety, particularly in Australia. I'll be happy to look for a bit more sourcing, but in the meantime, I think the keep argument is better here. Townlake (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found several more Australian sources Monday, will add them to the article Tuesday. Townlake (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added some stuff. Need to add more about surfing. Stay tuned. Townlake (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Found a few worthwhile articles at surfersvillage.com, but I'm on a fussy public interweb connection right now and won't be able to add the cites in until tonight or tomorrow morning. If closing admin decides to delete this before I get to it, I request userfication - Cheadle's passage of any one WP:BIO criteria is not resoundingly clear, but the combination of her surfing notoriety, acting experience, and resulting public interest / exposure in Australia makes me comfortable maintaining my keep recommendation. Townlake (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added cites, fact-tagged sentence on her / Billabong's sport-building activities - I've seen the sources, just need to collect and add them. I've got no problem with admin relisting this AfD since I've been the only one to comment on it, and I hope my pile of comments here aren't a WP:TE violation - I mean well. Townlake (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Townlake's source finds and article changes demonstrate notability... and I am unimpressed by the curt 2-word nomination. Appears sufficient sources to meet WP:BIO and write a neutral article. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cortex command[edit]

According to the article, an incomplete game and no indication of notability. Speedy replaced by a prod, contested by an anon IP. Blanked by the author so probably a speedy candidate. Ros0709 (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS --Numyht (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:CRYSTAL. Looking at the history, the author didn't actually blank it, he replaced it with the word "maladministration"; so I guess we can't use {{db-author}}. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Source - Play (US magazine) wrote a 2 page article on the game and it's developer, a copy of which has been uploaded by the developer here. An interview with the developer can be found here It also featured as game of the month on Indiegames here. Hope this helps.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source per the refs dug up by Gazimoff. Ford MF (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gazimoff, who did the research after the nomination that would have been mandatory before the nomination. --Kiz o r 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gazimoff knows his games, don't mess with him or he'll source you up /end jokishness. Someone add in the sources and info found by gazimoff, so there are no issues in the future. — _Maggot^Syn 15:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if there are sources indicating its notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The indie scene's been stunk-up with talk of this one for awhile now, print magazines don't devote two of their precious pages to interviews with developers if they're not developing something of note. Both the above sources are very reliable, the details present in both interviews are vastly superior to many future-game articles which spring up when there's nothing more than an announcement. The indie games interview is cited, I can't cite the play magazine one until I find the page numbers. Someone another 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the result is keep, please rename it to Cortex Command. Someone another 11:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a few more mentions with at least a smidgeon of usable material: PC Format and Rock Paper Shotgun. Not only does this (IMO) already pass the notability requirement, it's being signalled that further builds/the finished product will attract much greater attention in the future. Someone another 13:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Perry[edit]

Ross Perry has never played in a senior football match, which means that he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't the Scottish Premier League a top-level league? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the Scottish Premier League, or in any other competitive professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, recreate if and when he makes an appearance. --Jimbo^[online] 12:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question does his appearance in the Friendly mentioned in the article count as an appearance at the highest level? If so than this is a keep; otherwise delete. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, friendly games are not competitive, so they should just be ignored. --Angelo (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kinniburgh[edit]

Steven Kinniburgh has never played in a senior football match, which means that he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't the Scottish Premier League a top-level league? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the Scottish Premier League, or in any other competitive professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the Scottish Premier League is a top-level league, Steven Kinniburgh is yet to play in it, and as such doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rory Loy[edit]

Rory Loy has never played in a senior football match, which means that he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Isn't the Scottish Premier League a top-level league? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't played in the Scottish Premier League, or in any other competitive professional match. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Although the Scottish Premier League is a top-level league, Rory Loy is yet to play in it, and as such doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no appearances, no notability. --Angelo (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normo[edit]

Contested {{prod}} brought here for consensus. Neologism? Original research? Not in any dictionary I've checked. There is a medical use of normo~ prefix, but Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary. RobertG ♬ talk 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be original research and a non-notable neologism, needs references and is very short. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS --Numyht (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No prejudice against the creation of an article about the medical prefix, but, per WP:BLANK, right now, what we have should not be kept. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Mills[edit]

Fourteen year old school-boy rugby player. Never played professionally. Fails WP:ATHLETE nancy ^(talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet WP:ATHLETE at the moment. Bláthnaid 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-created page that fails ATHLETE (unless youth championships are the highest level of amateur competition in British rugby, which I doubt). Townlake (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth teams do not meet the guidelines of WP:ATHLETE. DarkAudit (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above; does not satisfy WP:ATHLETE, nor other notability guidlines. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails WP:BIO, likely WP:COI/WP:AUTO. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 05:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It's a A7 violation and fails WP:BIO. Google shows nothing reliable about him which shows he's non-notable. -- RyRy (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just In Case (Anye Elite song)[edit]

Fails WP:Music as it hasn't charted or been performed by many well known artists LegoTech·(t)·(c) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have previously expressed concern about the main artist article, but this certainly appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE it fails WP:MUSIC Ijanderson977 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this song is being released as a single, and there are no sources showing that the songwriter wrote it about the incidents mentioned in the article. As a result, the song does not meet the Wikipedia definition of "important" or "significant", so it is not worthy of its own article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete General failure to meet notability standards. ThuranX (talk) 18:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW delete, Note I have moved the content about the three cases mentioned to teh main article. Also let's avoid biting the newbies here. Banje boi 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball delete. Note to all those describing this as admin negligence - the article was deleted five days after the prod notice was placed on it. This deletion was then contested and the article was restored without the prod notice, as per standard procedures. As such it needed an AfD nomination to be again considered for deletion. There was no tardiness or negligence on anyone's part in this process Grutness...wha? 02:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia national under-23 football team 2008 Olympic Games campaign[edit]

Contested Prod (prod removed after 12 days of being uncontested). There is no need for an article of this type. The information is practically all duplicated from Australia national under-23 football team, 2007 Lunar New Year Cup, Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's qualification and Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Anyone can see Australia's involvement in the Olympics from those articles, so there is no need for a separate article just about them. Nfitz (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. I can't believe this went for a whole week after the prod expired without being deleted. Sort yourselves out, admins! – Pee Jay 19:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. No need for page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkshadowmaster (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as deserving of deletion under prod. I've asked at the Village Pump about perhaps being able to delete this now, without waiting for AFD, because the prod expired. Nyttend (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – Pee Jay 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as doubly expired PROD. Admins asleep at the switch! DarkAudit (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this listed at WP:CSD? I don't believe this is a criterion. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't invoking any criteria. Just noting that the standard PROD waiting period had pass more than twice over. Combine that with the lack of anyone coming to the article's defense, and we have a snowball beginning to roll. DarkAudit (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete, as this should have been prod-deleted straightaway by admins. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above reasons. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Piling on for all the reasons above. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stephen Arnold Music, Nakon 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Arnold[edit]

Biography, no independent sources, written like an ad, questionable notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite: It looks like copyvio now, but rather notable TV stations in the US use Stephen Arnold theme music. And yes, I'm back. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Stephen Arnold Music already exists, and the additional biographical information in Stephen Arnold is totally unsourced. Delete if not rewritten completely. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to Rewrite

RE: Sources – The article is sourced to multiple trade articles (Mulitchannel News, Post and SCREEN Magazine) written about Mr. Arnold, supporting the info about what he does for a living AND at the same time, what makes him notable. What else in the article do you need sourced?
RE: Birth date/age/nationality – How is this really relevant? This info would not make the page any more interesting. He’s just a middle-aged Caucasian male and it does state that he is from Indiana in the copy.
RE: Written like an advert – Its not. There is nothing in there that is an opinion nor that sways your opinion. It’s pretty cut and dry. Look at other pages and compare. I see MANY bio pages with no sources and that are poorly written. Just because it was written by a professional, and not someone off the street, the language should not be dumbed down.
RE: Stephen Arnold Music does exist as a page. However this is the company of Stephen Arnold and not about the man himself e.g., Donald Trump Organization is different to Donald Trump the man (and yes, both these seperate pages exist).No need to delete. Regards, Timesrunningout (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources - most of the citations are about the company, not the person. Besides, the online sources have the character of press releases or "business listings" (not independent, critical reporting), for example none of them seems to mention competitors, and all the information seems to come from the company itself, so they fail Wikipedia:COMPANY#Primary_criterion. And you have cited online sources in a misleading way (the source doesn't say that Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that ... "stick in a viewer's brain like chewing gum", it merely quotes Mr. Arnold saying that they try to create such sounds). Which makes one wonder if the offline sources are quoted accurately.
RE: Birth date/age/nationality - the exact birth date might not be essential, but an article about a person which doesn't even indicate from what part of the world he comes from and from what generation (is he 25 or 85?) is lacking fundamental information. In contrast, the humorous personal trivia in the (completely unsourced) "Personal Life" section are not relevant to the reader of an encyclopedia. This again raises the question why there should be a separate article besides Stephen Arnold Music.
advert - as Mr. Arnold's publicist[15], you are quite obviously more familiar with the writing style of marketing texts than with the neutral, factual tone expected in an encyclopedia. To just quote one example from your text:

Dedicated to providing the highest quality music productions, easy and efficient access to syndicated production music libraries and superior customer service, Arnold has a well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference

This is full of what is called peacock terms in Wikipedia. "successful" does mean what precisely? "Dedicated" is a typical advertising term (what does it really mean? that the goal of providing the product is more important to the company than making money?). "Superior" is an opinion that competitors might not agree with, so it violates WP:NPOV. Writing for and about your employer, you should really have read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Look at other pages and compare - Wikipedia is always a work in progress and there are certainly other articles which have quality issues and should be deleted. You are welcome to help out by pointing out some of them. But this is not a valid argument to justify violations of Wikipedia policies, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, so revert if I am not, but I think this needs to be relisted for more discussion since only 2 have commented.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Finalnight (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Arnold Music. What the company does is certainly notable, and its article could usefully be expanded (though preferably not by its own PR); but Mr Arnold's notability is what his company does, and this article has major problems:

conflict of interest - the author is Mr Arnold's publicist;
promotional tone and peacock terms: "Dedicated to providing quality... easy and efficient access... superior customer service... well-established reputation for delivering the successful sounds that make a difference" - none of those words backed up by the reference cited for them;
The sources quoted are mostly about the company and what it does, not for the personal part of the article, which as HaeB notes is oddly incomplete and trivia-like.

In short, I agree 100% with HaeB's remarks above, but I think the solution is to redirect to the company article, so that anyone searching the name will find that. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This was pretty tough, admittedly. Those that felt it should be deleted cited him having no professional experience, while those who wanted it kept cited some amateur experience. While his amateur exp. did push him above the "obviously non-notable level", I felt that the consensus leaned towards delete, with no prejudice to recreation should he play in a professional game. Wizardman 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dalby[edit]

Player has not sufficiently satisfied WP:ATHLETE. Furthermore, the player fails the notability criteria for football players as determined by WikiProject on Football GauchoDude (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has played for 1 professional team, his current one, but has not made any appearances. His latest team stats can be noted on Player History, which shows no appearances. GauchoDude (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE Nfitz (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing my deletion recommendation as although he hasn't played professionally, given the media attention paid to his amateur status, I'm not convinced that he is not notable. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question - can any subscriber tell us what the American team he made an appearance with was? matt91486 (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability is established (and concerns in this AFD are attended to swiftly). Fails several inclusion criteria such as WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How do we determine "highest level of amateur sport" in terms of football. I'm pondering the "he was also named captain of the U.S. Men's under-20 National Team" statement. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: We don't - American soccer is not amateur, and therefore this doesn't apply one iota.
  - This is a common argument and never been one that is really valid. There are amateur and professional aspects of American soccer. For you to say that it is not is just simply not true. There is obviously a significant, high-level amateur presence in American soccer. matt91486 (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, US high school player of the year and college All-American. Note: He has signed with the Colorado Rapids, but hasn't played with them yet. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the above reason states, he has yet to play in a fully-pro league/competition. Keeping it on this basis would be crystal ballery. --Jimbo^[online] 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments are not based on crystal ballery, but on past accomplishments and awards. Corvus cornix_talk 22:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The requirements for an athlete to be notable are listed as "Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league". He has done that. He is on the SC Charleroi team which has been around for more than a century, and is a major professional league in Belgium. He also meant the requirement for notability by being named the 2002 men's national "High School Player of the Year" of both Gatorade and Parade magazine. A quick use of Google shows him to have received significant media attention. Dream Focus (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has he actually played a game for Charleroi? I had a search and couldn't find any evidence of him turning out for them. Google hits do not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 13:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE; being contracted to a fully professional team is not enough, he must play a competitive game in order to be considered notable. --Angelo (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My keep criteria are based upon the awards he received as an amateur. Corvus cornix_talk 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - However football is not an amateur sport in both the US and Belgium. I won a couple of amateur coaching awards as well when at university, but I don't think this makes me notable. --Angelo (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Unfortunately, it's been decided that college football players are notable, therefore, why aren't college soccer players? Especially the top high school player of the year, and an all-american? Corvus cornix_talk 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes this is a point I will never understand - the only reason American soccer players don't play professionally before the age of 22 is because the culture dictates they must go to college, and NCAA rules state that players cannot receive compensation, monetary or otherwise, in order to remain NCAA eligible. Yet it's common sense that Michael Beasley and Derrick Rose are undoubtedly more notable than about 80% of current NBA players, despite technically failing WP:ATHLETE due to the fact that they've never played a minute of professional basketball - why? Because of their college performances. The problem is that instead of holding a set of standards to professional sports in a single country, we attempt to apply a single set of guidelines for a sport in every single country. This results in the most idiotic discriminations possible, including giving Spanish reserve team players precedence over reserve teamers in other countries because Spanish reserves are eligible to play in professional leagues... giving countries with smaller leagues (smaller in terms of # of teams) precedence over bigger ones, because mathematically it's more likely to have a fully professional league of 10 teams than it is to have one of 20 teams, all other things being equal... giving precedence to all other players over American ones (who generally attend college before playing professionally) or Brazilian ones (because they spend half the season playing in a "non-notable" state competition)... strange stuff. ugen64 (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Freddy Adu played for MLS at the age of 14. Corvus cornix_talk 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I know that - Claudio Reyna and Landon Donovan started their careers in Europe, Jozy Altidore and Clint Mathis (or maybe it was Bobby Convey, I'm too lazy to check) also entered MLS directly from high school. That's why I said "generally" American players attend college before playing professionally, which as a logical statement I'm sure you cannot deny. ugen64 (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Although he fails the professional test, his amateur achievements appear to be at the highest level. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Except that soccer isn't an amateur sport, it's professional. Doesn't count. GauchoDude (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Soccer is often played as an amateur sport, and his awards were for playing as an amateur. Nfitz (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Yes, soccer is often played as an amateur sport. However, the fact that is played professionally makes that the highest level and negates the amateur status for notability. Hope that clears it up for you. GauchoDude (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - hang on. So if one leaves the sport after being in University then they may have been notable? So if someone is notable as an amateur we have to delete their article when they first become professional? Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - No, as a rule of thumb, only professional soccer players that play in games are considered notable. University soccer players should not have articles as it is not the highest level of soccer that they could be playing, nor should U-age team players unless they play in the Olympics (as stated in the notability criterion formulated by the wiki project on football. GauchoDude (talk) 11:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - If we were talking just football players, then we should be using WP:FOOTYN and this would be a non-issue, however I've been told by you all time and time again that we can't use WP:FOOTYN because it doesn't have wider consensus, and therefore we must use WP:ATHLETE from which it appears he is notable by his amateur status. Nfitz (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - Yes, but soccer is not an amateur sport, it's a professional one, end of discussion. It is played professionally. Just because it can be played as an amateur sport, doesn't make it one. 68.6.116.109 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. Soccer is an amateur sport. It's primarily an amateur sport, millions (billions?) play the sport, but only a few are professional. There's no provision in WP:ATHLETE to exempt Football from the amateur provision. Nfitz (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dalby isn't "auto-notable" under WP:ATHLETE today, but enough non-trivial WP:RSes about him come up in a Gnews search that I believe the subject passes general notability requirements (based on media attention to his career thus far) without needing to fall back on the Athlete criteria. Yes, the article needs better sourcing, but that's fixable. Townlake (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - captain of the US U-20 team is a claim to notability --T-rex 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst generally not in favour of keeping most articles on people who most have never heard of, saying Football is a pro sport therefore there can never be an amateur included unless he subsequently turns pro is frankly silly. By that token anyone that ever won the Rugby Union Premiership pre Professionalism would not make the grade as it is now a pro sport. And equally whoever won the world amateur cup in football could not make it. There's no part of WP:ATHLETE that says this. BigHairRef | Talk 05:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "world amateur cup in football"? What's that?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st Time Amateur Auditions[edit]

Notability is lacking - no awards, or similar, to distinguish the films from thousands of others. Prod notice removed by sole editor with no comment. Plvekamp (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS Very very Vulgar --Numyht (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nom - I didn't nominate for vulgarity, wikipedia is not censored. Still fails notability, however. Plvekamp (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously, yet another unremarkable porn film. As for the comment above on vulgarity, that is of course completely irrelevant although in all fairness, the article is written in an unusually crude way, so much so that I'm tempted to label the creation as pure vandalism. I'm all for assuming good faith but I find it hard to believe that, in this case, the author actually believes he was doing Wikipedia a service by writing the article. Note that a couple of articles created by this editor on the same day have been proded: Kick Ass Anal Adventures and Kick Ass Anal Adventures. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a non-notable film. The vulgarity could be addressed through rewriting but, it fails all notability criteria anyway so rewriting would be a waste of time. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solvec[edit]

Delete. Article purports to describe a quasi-independent principality owned by a member of the Spanish Royal Family, and guarded by tanks, on the territory of the Philippines. The only references provided are entirely irrelevant to the content of the article. No Google hits and no other reliable source available to me corroborates the existence of either the principality or the Prince. In short, total fiction (except that the name Solvec does appear to be the name of a small village or other location in the Philippines). Russ (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to be more about the "prince" than the territory itself. A prince who by all accounts does not exist. If a member of the Spanish royal family had been shot, and it had then been reported by the press, it would have made Google News. No reports of any royalty of any stripe being shot or even having a boo-boo during the period in question. DarkAudit (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, hoax. Corvus cornix_talk 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted the article back to the December, 2006 version, which is the last good non-hoax version. Keep that version, but source. Corvus cornix_talk 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no idea about the authenticity of the article, but Salvec (or Sulvec) is a barangay in Narvacan, Ilocos Sur province. It is also picked up by Google Maps see here. Starczamora (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the amount of "information" on the original article and the absence of any citations or references, the article may as well be a hoax. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roosevelt Academy. PhilKnight (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Academy Student Association[edit]

Non-notable organisation. No significant outside coverage. First-person tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and has the look of spam to it. DarkAudit (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Roosevelt Academy. Does not meet WP:ORG notability criteria to have its own article. Specifically the guideline: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.--Finalnight (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Roosevelt Academy per Finalnight. Should not have an article unto itself for notability reasons and will fit more properly in the relevant main article. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, started in 2004. Article is a list of alumni. Wikipedia is Not MySpace. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is better than delete and will preserve the edit history and the link from the Dutch-language Wikipedia. --Eastmain (talk) 13:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roosevelt Academy seems sensible but certainly fails WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roosevelt Academy. The article doesn't meet WP:N. However, the article should not be deleted. Merging the article without deleting it will preserve the work of editors who have contributed to this article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The core policies WP:V and WP:NOR do not appear to be huge concerns in this case since whether or not a game features time travel is usually quite clear from the game itself, if nothing else, and many games have game guides published which makes the point absolutely clear. The question is therefore one of whether the content is trivial, or notable enough, and that is something which needs to be deferred to the community, and in this case there is no consensus that the premise for the list is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of games containing time travel[edit]

I don't know if a list fits AfD, but, it's here. This list is completely unsourced and has no citations. It has POV problems. It fails WP:N and WP:V. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reasonable list that is useful in searching for such games. As an encyclopedia is encyclopedia and an encyclopedia's content is useless without ways to find the information. No sources needed, if there is allready an article about the game. CindyTalk 01:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The list is not clearly defined and relies on original research. Kariteh (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...oh well. I suppose you had a reason for refusing my request on the article's talk page to contact me first so that we could look into whether the article can be improved before attempting to delete it as unimprovable. --Kiz o r 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list doesn't need much in the way of sources because it is a list of blue-links to articles which explain that the game in question contains time travel. This is normal for such lists. The supposed POV problems are not specified and I'm not seeing it since it is crystal clear that a game such as Chrononauts contains time travel. WP:N is irrelevant since this is a list whose primary purpose is to assist navigation to and between articles about notable topics. WP:V is likeiwise irrelevant because editors can verify the entries by going to the detailed articles which is where the sources are best placed. So, the complaints of the nomination are all empty and so there is no good reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No problems with WP:N or WP:V; it's that this seems rather trivial for a list of this sort. Simply the topic is the problem, as it's really not well defined, and containing time travel is totally irrelevant to the importance of the game (it's not like, say, a list of movies centered around time travel). Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has been at least one game where time travel is central, namely Time-Gate. And surely there must be at least one Doctor Who game where time travel is an important element. -- Korax1214 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list doesn't specify why "containing time travel" is a meaningful element to categorize games into. I could also create a List of movies containing characters that wear blue socks and smocke cigars.--PaterMcFly (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does our category of fiction about the sitting president of the United States, or any of the several lists of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction. They don't need to any more than this does. The concept of time travel has been everywhere in both fiction and popular consciousness since at least 1895, when H.G. Wells published The Time Machine. I can state without fear of error that everyone in this discussion was aware of it while growing up, and I know none of the editors here. Yet the idea of time travel has marginal scientific basis: it exists only in its depictions in fiction. This is very definitely something that we should list, and games are both a major subgroup of fiction and just one step more specific than an (impossibly unwieldy) list of time travel in all fiction.

Your comparison is a bit hard to grasp: that list seems to be closer to List of movies containing time machines with digital time displays or List of movies containing blue or candy-striped time machines than this one. Or do you mean that time travel itself is too obscure? To take a single time travel plot device: Travelling to kill Hitler before his reign is not only an ubiquitous ethics question, but there's been fiction made where Hitler is killed and history is healed, Hitler is killed and his body double is instated, Hitler is killed and a competent Nazi rises to power, Hitler is killed and the Soviet Union takes over Europe, H.i.k. and aliens invade a peaceful world, H.i.k. along with a number of historical tyrants and the person who did this is then arrested as the century's worst murderer, H.i.k. in a causal loop so that it can be done over and over again, H.i.k. repeatedly with no effect because history does not work that way, Hitler is attacked by multiple groups at once, Hitler is defended by time-travelling Nazis, travellers arrive to change history so that Germany loses the war, a time protection agent has a crisis of conscience over retaining Auschwitz, et cetera et cetera. Now we're getting this ("Take it easy on the kid, everybody kills Hitler on their first trip.") and this.

Further, if the list did need to explain its use, that would only be a good reason for deletion if there was no reasonable chance of adding one - and there's been no attempt to do or to check that. We cannot delete articles over cleanup matters, or we'd nuke significant portions of the encyclopedia with each major change in standards. Any ideas you might have for such an explanation would be appreciated. --Kiz o r 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I made myself not so clear: I'm not stating that time travel on itself isn't a topic widely used in fiction (and notable). I'm merely saying that I don't know why a list that categorizes games after it would be notable. Keeping this list would probably make place for a lot of other similar lists whose use is IMHO questionable. (see also T-rex further down.) --PaterMcFly (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll clarify as well: Because video games are one of today's primary mediums for that fiction. They don't have the prestige for that, but certainly the popularity: see the link to an external news article below. If - as I believe - a list of time travel in all fiction would be hopelessly cluttered, then this is not an overspecialized subject but as general as it can possibly be.

As for the matter of precedent, few things below ArbCom's level give it weight, certainly AfD hasn't. (In fairness I've seen the argument put forward on rare occasions, but it didn't do much.) We can consider the other lists that you fear on their own merits as and if they come. You wish to delete this (in part) because it might cause trouble, but I think the usual counterargument is that we still have the George W. Bush and penis articles, despite everything that they attract. ;) --Kiz o r 09:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure trivia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how come? As described above time travel is huge. Video games may seem insignificant due to their young age and lowbrow reputation, but there's more cash in them than in box office movies. Time travel in video games tends to be roughly as subtle an element as nuclear war (that is, unless it's just in the backstory it's hard to keep it from taking center stage.) None of that seems trivial and especially not "pure."
If you have any ideas on how to satisfy your concern by improving this article (tightening its scope and adding more meat on its bones come to mind), then your opinion would be appreciated, either in this discussion, on the article's talk page if it's kept, and in any userfied reworking attempt if it's not. I'll drop a note about this on your user page unless I get distracted by something shiny. --Kiz o r 08:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, Keep it as a category. As an article the topic fails notability but it is a useful way to categorize games. The sub-category "Time travel games" could be created in the "Games" category, for example. Rejectwater (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Time travel video games and Category:Video games with time travel? Kariteh (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's neat, I didn't notice those. One for plot, the other for game play. Seems redundant to me. In any case I would think both of those (or a merger into one) would fit as sub-categories of "Time travel games". Rejectwater (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a list of trivia. time travel in games is not a notable concept of its own --T-rex 16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable) and What Wikipedia is. The subject is covered in such reliable sources as "The Best Time-Travel Games," Stuff Magazine (3/9/2003). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories serve different purposes and the existence of the time-travel game categories does not make this list redundant; lists can have brief summaries (as this one does), and can red-link items which do not have articles yet (again, as this one does). --Stormie (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's able to be varified, please provide the citations and sources. As of now, all the information presented is trivial. Also, with two categories containing the same information, we really don't need the list. This list cites nothing nor does it contain sources. While lists normally provide help, this cannot due to the simple lack of sources. Undeath (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and thanks to the two above keepers, regardless of how this turns out, I had given up). I'm with Micow and Colonel Warden here: this is a way of organizing notable topics, and has no verifiability problems (beyond giving a 1983 video game as the first time-travelling one and that's just one line). It's a long-standing convention, accepted in the three principles, that noncontroversial descriptions about a work may be sourced to the primary source of the work itself. It's vitally necessary as well: Have you ever tried writing an article about Romeo and Juliet without consulting the play at all, and restricting yourself to third parties' descriptions about the play? Me neither, and I'd rather not start. We could always shore up the article by adding quotes from the games, their manuals and where applicable their references, but that's not a necessity. Mentioned POV problems don't seem evident without further specification and anyway are an editing matter, not a deletion matter, unless they're fundamentally insurmountable a la Reasons why jews did WTC or something.

The list is a surprisingly valuable navigation tool about a major concept. The two categories do not contain the same information and do not make the list redundant for the reasons described by Stormie, not to mention because it's the only way for readers to check if a particular method of time travel, an implementation of time travel in gameplay, or a space-time model has been done or is widespread without reading several dozen articles. It is also the kind of thing that's Wikipedia's particular strength: no similar list is readily, if at all, available elsewhere online. This is not to plead usefulness, but it is valuable and should not be handled too lightly.

Finally, this was made by a new user who did not do it prim and proper and could not be expected to be able to. There has been no effort to improve it or discussion about how to do so (I was busy with other matters, alas). The nominator has done neither and has not acknowledged the request for leaving a message before AfDing that I did leave sitting on the article's talk page. This seems like a shaky basis for deeming the article irredeemable. If it is not, I'd like to invite all concerned and interested editors who haven't spoken to suggest improvements on the article's talk page after this AfD is over. --Kiz o r 11:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this has some good arguments about categories and lists being synergistic instead of competitive. It took some time to find because the admin whom I saw using it linked to WP:CLT by mistake. :) Also, those of you who are more experienced with hunting down references for games: Where would we go to get the sources for a proper lede and description for this thing? Could there be some general statements in the material about, say, The Journeyman Project or Timeshift? Answer on this page, the article's talk or my talk, depending. --Kiz o r 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, but I don't see any consensus either way. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LIST. The list provide useful information about games containing time travel. We have categories like Category:Time travel video games and Category:Video games with time travel. However, this list can provide citations and details which categories cannot provide. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is a meaningful list of bluelinks, and is important for navigation purposes. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lenticel ^(talk) 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solitary[edit]

Article is little more than dicdef and disambiguate listing. Plvekamp (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the far better article Solitude. AnturiaethwrTalk 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per Brewcrewer's conversion into a dab page. (But also improve. I think huge chunks of that stuff don't belong on a dab.) AnturiaethwrTalk 20:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notwithstanding the dicdef, it's a dab page. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Brew notes: no reason to delete a disambiguation page. Nyttend (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves as a useful disambig page and belongs here. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is more detailled than your usual dab page, but it is a valid dab page nonetheless, and it is already tagged as such. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw by nom I've removed the dicdef material, and left (and added to) the disambig section. If I was too bold in removal please feel free to re-add, but I'm OK with keeping the article as a dab per User:Anturiaethwr's comment above. --Plvekamp (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter polo[edit]

No refs, so suspect this sport is something made up one day. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are some trivial Google hits, but nothing that indicates that this is any kind of established sport. Bláthnaid 19:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable, third-party sources can be found and incorporated into the article, which seems unlikely. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 03:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notability. Some hits on Google but not from reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing pink elephants[edit]

As per WP:NOT. This article is a dictionary definition and a list of occurrences of the phrase in popular culture. Since this term could be applied to either alcoholic hallucinosis, or delirium tremens, this article can't just be changed to a redirect. Any verifiable material on the medical conditions would be encyclopaedic topics, but would belong in those articles, not under an ill-defined slang term. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this phrase, so I don't think Wikipedia should have an article on it. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 00:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand, explain, and keep. DGG (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand with what DGG? Material on alcoholic hallucinosis, or material on delirium tremens? Or do you think the article could be improved by adding more examples of when this phrase has been used in popular culture? The core problem is that I can't find any reliable sources that specifically discuss the phrase "Seeing pink elephants", so I don't see how we could expand the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. This is WP:TRIVIA. Big time. If the page can be expanded with actual academic content (e.g. why pink elephants as opposed to blue pandas, the influence of pink elephants on the perception of drunkenness in 1920s America etc etc) we can talk again. JFW | T@lk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with explanations of the phrase in popular culture. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 08:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some sources that discuss the use of this phrase in popular culture? Without any sources that do this, your suggestion is not possible. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are already some sources and useful content in the current page. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a definition, the origin of the phrase, and some documented examples. What is lacking is any sources that discuss this phrase as their subject. You can't write an encyclopedia article without sources that discuss the subject - examples are insufficient since all you are doing by adding these is creating a list. Imagine writing an article on "You can't take it with you" or "Dead as a doornail", you could define the phrase, show when it was first used, and list some examples, but they would be just as unsatisfactory as this article on "Seeing pink elephants" since there is nothing more that you could say. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Explanation is that is is part of a colourful metaphor coined by Jack London in 1913. If the other half of the mataphor had passed into general use instead, we would be seeing blue mice ! Gandalf61 (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that we should keep this article because you like the subject and find it interesting? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> Obviously not, and please don't try to put words into my mouth. We should keep this article because it is encyclopedic and not just a dictionary definition. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is an encyclopedic topic, there must be some reliable sources that discuss this phrase. Could you find some and add them to the article? Unfortunately I've looked and can't find any. At present the only reference is from a dictionary, which doesn't help the problem that this article seems no more than a dictionary definition. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find a full encyclopedia article in the topic. I just added the relevant information to John Barleycorn (novel), so the search term can be redirected there. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disambiguation page Pink elephant might be the best redirect target. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a curious meme with a long and interesting history, independent of London's novel. If more sources are needed, well, Google search for the phrase "pink elephants" returns this article as one of the top results; it's not scholarly, but it's certainly thorough (there are numerous historical images) and it strikes me as reliable. If you need scholarly sources, try Archer Taylor, "Pink Elephants Again", Journal of American Folklore 67 (1954): 238 -- a peer-reviewed article that asks, "Is the English phrase connected with the Hindu god Ganesh?" If other encyclopedias don't have an article on it, I'd say that's a strength of Wikipedia, not a reason to delete the article. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use any sources to improve the article, but at present all the sources provide is the etymology and some examples. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jd4v15. Haukur (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single phrase from Jack London does not make this notable. There is very little evidence that the phrase has been used since 1913, and will ever be more than a dictionary definition --T-rex 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and due to active effort to improve this referenced article about a recognizable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article could be improved, could you outline what else it could contain apart from defining the phrase and its etymology, and giving a list of times when it has been used? What is it that you think could be added to improve the article and move it past a dictionary definition and list of trivia? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Easter Seals (Canada). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Seals Camp Horizon[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nationally known facility. Needs better sourcing, but receives regular media coverage in Alberta for its programs. 23skidoo (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Bragg Creek, Alberta. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good solution. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I strongly disagree, as Camp Horizon is not notable for being part of Bragg Creek, nor is Bragg Creek notable for having Camp Horizon in the vicinity. I still support keeping as a separate article, but if a merge is done, then let it be for something relevant like Easter Seals (or a specific article on the Canadian or Alberta branch of same - I haven't looked to see if there is one). 23skidoo (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An even better solution. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Easter Seals (Canada) per above. PhilKnight (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A2 by Gwen Gale. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explosiva reina[edit]

Not in English Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, under criterion 1 of General Criteria. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Speedy delete G1 specificaly excludes material not in English. It's for nonsense words, not badly written articles. G1 doesn't apply here. eaolson (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not in English Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape by Race[edit]

Prod was contested. WP:Original research, unnecessary POV fork of 2006 Duke University lacrosse team_scandal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant OR, clearly not following NPOV, pov-pushing piece created specifically to make a point. -Toon⁰⁵ 16:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original Research + POV = Delete. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and POV. Dpmuk (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Suffers from POV issues and is original research. Lacks foundation for notability and is clearly an attempt at racist disparagement. ∴ Therefore | talk 16:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete soapy OR attack page. Consists solely of one sentence (formerly a paragraph) and a link to a .pdf file so it's also someone using Wikipedia as their personal webspace. Created by a user who has a history of vandalism, personal attacks and violation of the standards for Biographies of Living Persons. Also Suggest salting this and Interracial rape, a similar page created by the same author with the same content that was redirected into this article. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and a blatant POV fork. Current revision is borderline A1, and is very brief. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, and as WP:COATRACK, as the statistics are also incomplete, listing only cases involving one Caucasian and one African. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. WP:SNOW anyone? Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially because of the blatant POV fork thingy. I HATE blatant POV fork thingies (really). -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naakashiga[edit]

Suspected hoax, if not, then very un-notable and completely unsourced. Not a single hit on Google (except this article and a wikirage history). Ged UK (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Hoax indeed. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. PhilKnight (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partners in torah[edit]

Procedural nomination. Article was speedily deleted as CSD A7. This was overturned on DRV because assertions of importance were made in the article. Topic still has questionable notability, however. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the parent organization as stated in the article , Torah Umesorah. There does not seem to be support for independent notability. DGG (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Torah Umesorah. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge without prejudice unless reliably sourced. I don't see the alleged assertions of notability, and it looks advertisementish to me. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as NN; no substantial assertion of notability, no adequate sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Torah Umesorah. It's a program of that organization which at this point seems to lack independent notability. --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools#Partners-in-Torah. Individual notability has not been established but it is clearly important to the (notable) parent organisation. Smile a While (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools because it's one of their sub-divisions. It may yet merit it's own article as it grows and becomes a more notable organization. IZAK (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per IZAK. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropedia[edit]

Originally nominated for G11, and declined. Still fails WP:WEB, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability in this promotional-sounding article. JJL (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from deleting appropedia until I have fixed it -- having trouble determining how I can demonstrate notability without sounding like a cheerleader or being "promotional sounding" - what is enough? If you can assist with this - please make edits directly to the page. The site has put out press releases showing millions of page views - is that enough or do I need to get Google analytics or something similar.

The website in question is non-commercial, has no advertising and run by a 501c3. The information contained within it is of course plagued by the same challenges as wikipedia - but is the most part a very reliable source for appropriate technology information. In my opinion it is clearly the dominant player in the field and is continuing to aggregate smaller entities of a similar scope. The whole idea is that everyone should work together and eliminate redundancy.

Appropedia has been mentioned in the literature -- but I can only find it once in a peer reviewed conference paper - it is still pretty new -- I have included that article -- is that enough?
--Enviro1 (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note, the Websites state as non-commercial, advetising content, and or content have nothing todo with it's inclusion on Wikipedia. Also given your apparent (please correct me if i'm wrong) conflict of interest, in your participation with the website in question makes your opinion on notability and the article itself somewhat questionable. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my comment on the above, and complete lack of evidence supporting notability. - 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was originally eligible for G11, but had been edited before an admin got to it. This site currently has an Alexa ranking of 217,446, but climbing. Still, the organization has not yet achieved enough notoriety to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - I have added considerable data to the article to support its notability including a reference to the peer reviewed literature, which luckily is available free online. The site is relatively new and only has some 4 million page views. If there is a standard number of hits (or Alexa ranking) a site has to obtain before it is notable - would someone please tell me what that is and I will store the article until Appropedia is notable enough.

' As Jimmi pointed out I am a user of the site the same as I am in wikipedia -- although not a founder and I dont work for the 501c3 or have any other conflict of interest. If any of the editors know of a better appropriate technology database please let me know about it - I am not aware of it. AT is not a terribly popular topic - but interest is growing.--Enviro1 (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sega Saturn Sound Format[edit]

This article has no content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. It briefly mentions that this format is proposed, but contains nothing to prove its existence. Existence alone is not notable. It is not like this is the first digital music format to rely on hardware emulation for playback. Google only finds 257 matches for this format, and all of them point to forum discussions or very short blog posts. Blog posts are not considered a credible source. Even in the case that it is a blog from a known industry professional -- unlikely given the topic at hand -- it does not mitigate the topic's lack of notability. This article should be deleted. If the facts change at some point in the future, a new article could be created. The muramasa (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS, possible hoax--Numyht (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of something "proposed" and not actually existent must be supported by some pretty heavy duty references, and this is supported by nothing. Ford MF (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and with no references. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 12:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In any case, something like this is better mentioned in the Sega Saturn article. MuZemike (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have sympathy with Husond who lives in the city and testifies to the obscurity of the monument, but the little disussion between Sdrtirs and Tosqueira indicate the possibility of more sources at least. I have also noted with interest the note by Lechatjaune regarding a deletion discussion at the Portuguese Wikipedia, but that one appears to be turning towards "keep". I am removing the sentence about the monument being a major landmark, as its uncited, subjective, and probably not entirely true. This might be renominated at some point in the future, but with the sourcing issue still in motion, I'm letting this stay this time around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monumento ao Bombeiro[edit]

This is a self-made promotional page of dubious veracity. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Botelho. Korax1214 (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Speed Clean-up. This article needs more work and not deletion. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Keep - the current incarnation of the article seems not to be promotional or POV-pushing, it doesn't seem to violate policy IMO. -Toon⁰⁵ 16:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article was written (and its photograph supplied) by the sculptor, a guy called "Carlos Botelho" who (according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Botelho) has made several questionable edits attempting to cash-in on the fame of his famous namesake. In particular, no source has been given for the claim that this sculpture "is one of the main landmarks of Sintra". (I attempted to visit the Sintra town website, but its extensive use of scripting made it unloadable on my copy of Firefox even after I added all its sources to my NoScript whitelist.) This article was already (earlier today) speedied by another user for this reason. -- Korax1214 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ok, it may have been created by the user, but it doesn't read as if it is pov-pushing. It could have just as easily been written by anyone else, and this is certainly not one of the worse articles on the encyclopaedia. -Toon⁰⁵ 19:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Self-promotion (created by the author himself) and WP:V (no independent reliable sources proves its notability). Tosqueira (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Independent reliable sources found. Tosqueira (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No mention on the website of the "junta" of the freguesia: [16] and: [17]. This monument is not that im´portant. Tosqueira (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may not be referenced or important to the Parish of Belas but it is referenced and important for the Municipality of Sintra.--Sdrtirs (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established (third-party sources badly needed) -- Korax1214 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear self-promotion and non-notable monument. In Portugal alone there are thousands of other similarly undistinguished monuments placed on roundabouts. Mostly for decorative purposes. Hús ö nd 01:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been voted on wiki-pt (see pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Monumento ao Bombeiro) acording to that discussion, there are at least five other "monuments to firemen" in Portugal, none of them deserving note. There is no third-party sources availlable. Lechatjaune (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just read that discussion (through the Googlefish) and it makes interesting reading. Thanks. -- Korax1214 (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An IP (probably himself) has found some reliable sources: [18], [19] and [20]. But, it doesn't say anything about Bottelho. Tosqueira (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two won't resolve for me (404 error, domain jf-belas.pt not found); the third (the Sintra town site), although it now loads (probably due to my having upgraded Firefox since I last tried it), is still painfully s-l-o-w for me (I suspect because it's ridiculously overburdened with scripting). The "Tourism and Culture / Museums and Monuments" pull-down menu has nothing about sculptures, only fountains. Using the site search for "firemen" resulted only in pages about the emergency services; searching for "botelho" produced no results whatsoever. Hence, I don't see how any of these three are "reliable sources", since from my end the first two aren't reliable (or even existant) and the third isn't a source. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all three now resolve for me, but they're in Portuguese. (Since this page is on the English Wikipedia, linking to English versions, if available, would be more appropriate.) However, the illustrations in question are unmistakably of this monument (unless there's another somewhere else which is exactly similar in appearance, which is unlikely).

Comment I think the medail i found can give us clue of the author signed as C. Botelho or Bottelho as artistic name [21]. Detail of the medail [22] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.30.16 (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The monument was inaugurated by Ministry of Internal Administration's Secretary of State of Portugal, so it has importance to Portugal and to Wikipedia. Source: http://www.cm-sintra.pt/revistaartigo.aspx?ID=9 Official Municipal Chamber of Sintra website.--Sdrtirs (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's on the magazine news of Municipal Chamber of Sintra. But it isn't notable since it's not even in the "monument section" of the website of Municipal Chamber of Sintra: [23].Tosqueira (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That doesn't bring any particular notability, an inauguration by a secretary of state is really no big deal. Portugal has tens of secretaries of state and they inaugurate something every single day. Just like mayors and anyone else holding a political position do. No big deal really. Hús ö nd 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the talk page, 213.22.30.16 has falsely alleged that this AfD is an act of "vandalism". From this, I can only assume that s/he is new to Wikipedia and has little knowledge of how things work here. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and the conflict issues. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is not "a self-made promotional page". Monuments don't edit. "Is one of the main landmarks of Sintra". Undoubtedly, it was made, and with reason. The sources exist. They just need to be found and added. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the main landmarks of Sintra?!? As a resident of Sintra, I almost take that as an insult. Hús ö nd 13:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ROM hacking. PhilKnight (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Patching System[edit]

This article is not worthy of inclusion in the Wikimedia project. Its topic is not notable. There are no citations for this topic in any publication, and no citations in this article. Its only external links appear to link to small-time software made to support this format, and a few pages which list compatible utilities. The mere presence of multiple utilities to work with one file type does not establish notability. Age does not establish notability either. Linked documents mention this format as early as 1994, but despite a certain 15 years of existence, no publication has ever covered this format. While it may have relevance to the Internet subculture which created and uses this format, it is not strong enough to demand a unique article. The state of the article after years of Wikipedia alone tells volumes about how relevant this format is. I propose this article be deleted and its content abridged and added as a paragraph to the ROM Hacking article. It should also be added to the Alphabetical list of file extensions. The muramasa (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect page to ROM Hacking per the well argued nomination. It lacks context and content as a stand alone article but works very well within the context of ROM Hacking. Faradayplank (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up 3D Don't Stop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

According to Variety [24] they are simply in talks about this...far too early to write an article. Fails WP:Crystal. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator; films get announced all the time in The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. There are plenty of these announcements that never actually make it to production. I would not say it fails WP:CRYSTAL since the article is considered verifiable coverage, so mention of this plan can be placed at the previous film's article. The article does fail both WP:N and WP:NFF, though -- nothing beyond this article, and production has not begun, anyway. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. This project mere rumour and the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve ^{T • C} 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of South Korean films. Users will have access to a list of links to articles of films per year. --JForget 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean films of the 1960s[edit]

Utterly redundant. Each year in each of these decades has its own seperate list, so these "lists" serve only a navigational function which is already comprehensively covered by not one but two navigational templates, not to mention the parent list, List of South Korean films, which again lists all years individually. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Yes, everything here-- links to the individual years-- is in the List of South Korean films. I believe these lists were set up when we were starting the Korean film project, before we had enough films to justify one "list" for each year. As the year lists now exist, the decade lists are obsolete. (This applies to all four nominations) Dekkappai (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, the existance of lists for each year makes these just redundant.--Aldux (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the appropriate sections in List of South Korean films, possibly merge if there is other content in these articles which is not in List of South Korean films. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Corvus. Ford MF (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per Corvus. Lugnuts (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all, of course. Did we need an AfD to decide this? What happened to being bold? AndyJones (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well these decade pages are dab pages more than anything. They aren't essential -I'd redirect as suggested ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a merge tag left and the actual merging left to interested editors - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deakin Law School[edit]

Fails WP:CORP lacks reliable and third party sources to establish notability Michellecrisp (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Law schools, and most graduate schools, are generally accepted to be notable. I would be quite shocked if there are no reliable sources out there. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a graduate school. From the article: "The school teaches Bachelor of Laws to undergraduate students ..." -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's with the second half of the sentence that you left out?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, it has some postgraduate students but that does not make it a post-graduate school. Its role is to teach undergraduates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is again a misconception that came out in the Griffith Law School deletion debate. In Australia, law schools are predominantly undergraduate with most or all students doing a combined degree as Mattinbgn says below. Secondly, Australian law schools are no more autonomous than say an engineering school. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google: "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,060 for 'deakin law school.'" Yahoo: "1 - 10 of 1,900 for ' deakin law school.'" I'd be pretty surprised if at least a couple of these didn't qualify as "reliable...third party sources to establish notability." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion on this, but I'd just like to point out that, for the string "deakin law school" -wikipedia, Google returns 137 unique results and the same string on Yahoo returns (or appears to return; what a weird search engine) 274 unique results. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I know that. The gist of WP:GHITS is quality-over-quantity, and my point was that there are enough hits (e.g., this one) of potentially good quality that it would be premature to delete without first exploring these hits in some depth. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Deakin University. This is not a law school in the North American sense. The school is a mere department of Deakin University with no more independence than the Engineering, Biology and Commerce departments. The school is not a graduate school per se, but teaches law to undergraduates. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Mattinbgn. In addition: As per Anturiaethwr, there are 137 unique articles if you look at the last page of the Google search and remove Wikipedia from the search. In addition, I'd be pretty surprised if at least a couple of these didn't qualify as "reliable is not a valid keep criterion. Corvus cornix_talk 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- with Deakin University per Mattinbgn. - Longhair\^talk 22:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mattinbgn. Law schools in Australia are basically university departments, and aren't independent institutions (for example, they don't issue their own degrees). Nick Dowling (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for exactly the same reasons I gave for keeping Griffith University Law School. The UWS School of Law is a similar case, but has no deletion tag. This lack of consistency suggests that Michellecrisp is trying to make some kind of WP:POINT, which does not seem particularly helpful. Law schools founded in the 1990s have not had time to develop the prowess of nineteenth century or 1960s schools, but they could still be notable. Mathsci (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please discuss the subject matter at hand, not the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Corvus, I have previously had a conflict with Mathsci, seems like is hanging onto every deletion I nominate and automatically opposes (could be WP:POINT in itself) as for UWS School of Law is another candidate which I have just put up for deletion. Please note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not valid in a deletion debate. The current article lacks reliable sources to establish notability that is the key question. If they are notable there will be ample evidence. So if you are arguing for keep please provide the evidence rather than original research. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several WP articles on Australian University law schools. These schools fall into three classes: those created in the nineteenth century, those created in the 1960's and those created in the 1990's. Recently created law schools cannot expect to number ambassadors or high school judges amongst their alumni, but are nevertheless notable because, like business schools, they have a slightly different status within their university. Some university law schools in the UK do not necessarily get a separate article. While this is true for the Law Faculty of the University of Cambridge, (which lists no alumni, only a current list of administrative staff and as far as I can see makes no attempt to establish notability), there is no article for the law school in the University of Oxford (there is an article on the undergraduate Oxford Law Society). Three university law schools in Australia established in the 1990's currently have WP articles: Griffith University Law School, Deakin Law School and UWS School of Law. The recent establishment of these law schools, and the consequent paucity of alumni, should not exclude these law schools from having articles. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number of alumni is not the sole criterion for notability nor is the relative age of the school. If these arguments are presented then it follows that other schools such as engineering or science from Griffith University , Deakin University , University of Western Sydney should have their own articles. Basically I'm looking for evidence from verifiable sources not original research that these schools have a significant standing in academia. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why WP:OR applies to this kind of discussion; it is a term that refers to main space edits. I am not sure how you would assess the noteworthiness of law institutes like the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. Just for reference, because this is a debate and because the CIC is a comparable institution founded in 1959, could you explain why that law institute deserves a WP article, but this one does not, based purely on what you can read in the article and its one non-independent source? Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer Syntax Notation One[edit]

As far as I can tell, this "standard" has been created by a single vendor, and is only used in their products. No evidence has been provided that this is anything other than an advertisement. The article tries to draw a comparison with ASN.1, but the fact is that ASN.1 is a heavily used international standard, whereas this, as far as I can tell, is something that a single company has invented, and no one is using it save them and their customers. SJK (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to be non-notable. Google search only returns two hits (apart from relating to our article), from protomatics (the creator, I assume), and a patent for it. No hits on google news, or the google blog search, or google groups. These are all for "Transfer Syntax Notation One". "TSN-1" doesn't seem to return anything relevant either. Silverfish (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliably sourced to a standards organization--even a proposal or draft form would be acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 18:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Riverside Stadium Wiffleball[edit]

As near as I can tell, this is an article about someone's back yard -- I can find no Google hits for this outside of ones that lead back to Wikipedia (see, as negative evidence, http://newjersey.hometownlocator.com/features/cultural,class,Park,scfips,34031.cfm), there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a professional wiffleball league and the team names are very fishy. I was alerted to this possibility by an editor who was aggrieved that the article about HIS back yard had been deleted. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it refers to the same back-yard stadium:

Delete As non-notable and a possible hoax. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only google results to an "SDP Park" that have any relationship to the subject is either Wikipedia itself or mirrors. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources to prove that this place exists in any way. DarkAudit (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are many organized wiffle ball leagues throughout the country, but in the case at hand, I cannot find any evidence that this "stadium" hosts any organized sporting events Jets88toon (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 obvious hoax. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Satellite TV[edit]

Speedy Delete -- The contents of this article are a hoax. There is not a separate satellite system in the US named Crown -- and Comcast does NOT own interest in any satellite system. There are no sources, and no verifiable information. Period. This article has been PROD'd, I am changing that to a full-blown AfD, and requesting speedy deletion. Mhking (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as PRODder. Pretty obviously made up. Gr1st (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A3 (Blatant hoax). And ow... my eyes... --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Gavin Hoyte[edit]

The result was Speedy delete G4 as the decision from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Hoyte (2nd nomination) is still binding, the circumstances have not changed. Please use {{db-repost}} for future similar nominations rather than AfD. Qwghlm (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Footballer who has made no professional first team appearances for Arsenal. Fails WP:BIO. Would be speedy, but arguable notability in "playing for Arsenal FC". -Toon⁰⁵ 12:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has made one first team appearance- against Barnet in the FA up as a second half substitute ! Red&White4life (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, well find a reliable source for that, i.e. BBC match report, put it in the article and cite it! Based on what little information is in the article, this guy is a nobody. If you can add that info with reference, I would be more than happy to keep the article. -Toon⁰⁵ 13:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' added references to demonstrate notability. (Also, when I tried to save it said it had been already deleted. WTF?)--Serviam (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, Snowball closure. --Angelo (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 English Big Four Clubs[edit]

This article just doesn't need to exist. The useful info is already at Premier League 2007–08, and this is just a POV laden piece Ged UK (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Irrespective of the author's seeming inability to write English, it's just a POV-ridden personal essay. Blackmetalbaz (talk)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.--Serviam (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All useful information is in the other article mentioned. As it is currently written it looks like POV and OR as well (although this would probably be correctable if there was any point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:V and WP:OBVIOUS --Numyht (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rubbish. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only concur with everyone else. Aaaaaaagh! Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic ramble badly covering ground already adequately covered in several other articles. I'm intrigued to know, though, who the witch involved in the Chelsea-Liverpool game was though..... - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unencyclopedic article with lost of POV. Artene50 (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aaaaaaargh! – Pee Jay 09:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inaccurate, appalling English, POV, unencyclopaedic, OR... Dancarney (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absurdly Easy Delete - an appaling piece of WP:CRUFT - there's no saving this one. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance we can snowball this one? It is clearly completely unsalvagable as an encyclopedic article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, guys, you've made your point. I appreciate none of you have quite breached WP:CIVIL but I think if I was the author of this I wouldn't be feeling very enthused about helping out at Wikipedia any longer. Remember WP:BITE. AndyJones (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all, per compelling arguments from Thierry Caro and others. That the articles' creator also says delete is also very convincing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Coeur Saignant[edit]

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked them up on the world atlas in microsoft encarta. If someone would care to go through these and add that ref in, I think they class as verifiable.--Serviam (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per above. Real places which are inherently notable. It seems an energetic user began creating articles of towns and villages on Réunion and one misguided new article watcher prodded all of them. --Oakshade (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now based on Thierry Caro's comments below. When I have time I want to search for resources more closely on all of these. There is an argument that even very small communities are considered notable, but just a house or two aren't. --Oakshade (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are not communities or villages. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main issue here is quite problematic and has potentially great implications for further rfd: how do you define how many inhabitants are enough for a "village"? If, as our French friend said on the Village Pump, these places all have two or three families, they may all the same pass; I remember that Rfd involving US census locations closed with overwhelming keeps, on the ground that just being a census place. And one of these places, I remember, had only 10 inhabitants, but it passed with great ease all the same (unforunately, I don't remember the place's name, so I can't link you to the discussion; sorry :-(); and 10 inhabitants doesn't seem to be different from many of these Reunion localities.--Aldux (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see your point, and I also share your strong misgivings concerning the source (it's use is spreading across Africa like a plague). We could argue for the deletion of these articles on the impossibility to present even minimally decent sources (that's a difference from the US census localities, as they do use at least one reliable source: the census).--Aldux (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be great to do so, since missing sources is really the question here. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep all, real places. Serviam has proven their existence. Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as their existence as real places has been verfiied. Size is not a consideration; there are articles in Wikipedia about places with zero population. If what's causing a problem is the fact Brittanica hasn't devoted an article to them, or there isn't a bunch of websites about them, then that's a form of bias. Even if they only have "a few houses" as Thierry Caro suggests, they're still actual and verified geographical locations, which satisfies notability. The concern about the legitimacy of some sources is valid, but in my opinion Encarta is a viable source. Something also worth noting is that Google Earth links to Wikipedia articles on places; therefore, someone examining Reunion will see links to these articles, which will allow them to find some information -- albeit minor -- about what they're looking at. Granted, Google Earth is not Wikipedia, but the fact the two have become interconnected in this way simply adds to the argument about verifiable places being notable enough for stubs, at least. 23skidoo (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have you understood that all the Maison up there actually mean House? We are talking about single houses. That is what it is! If you call that notable, we may consider going for Maison Thierry Caro. After all, I have a lot of stuff to tell about this one. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen to Thierry. Maison means house in French (not mansion, not estate). These are not villages or communities. In France Metropolitan, more so in the countryside, old individual farms and houses often have names instead of street addresses. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maison can also be the name of towns, municipalities, etc; Maison-Rouge, Oursel-Maison, Maison-Roland, Maison-Ponthieu and La Maison-Dieu for examples. --Oakshade (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I asked the creator if these could be deleted, as he'd seemed to indicate in his discussions with Thierry, he replied he replied that I could go right ahead. Because PM added prod tags, I didn't speedily delete them under WP:CSD#G7, but I probably should have done. "Verified geographical location" is poor stuff. You can use Ordnance Survey maps to verify the existence of farmhouses, rocks, copses, a pretty small lakes. We've deleted plenty of those sort of errors before now. Even Fritz's scary bot wasn't going to add places with one or two houses. Failing Rain is a pretty weak source for somewhere like Réunion. INSEE or the like should know of all the inhabited places we'd expect to include on Gazetteer grounds. I'm not sure why this is even being debated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Each of these seems, at best, to be equivalent to a small housing development in the United States (say, a dozen homes). That doesn't make them notable. Given the person who created them has acknowledged the mistake, let's clear them away. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;^[25] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Agrawal[edit]

Subject fails WP:Note. Anonymous IP (sockpuppet?) removing speedy tags. Blowdart | ^talk 11:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is unclear at best. Google turns up nadda except this person's personal webpage. Said webpage also falls dramatically short of establishing notability, considering it is nothing more than an "under construction" placeholder. - Vianello (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close to an A7 speedy but I think the "leading commodity broker" claim saves it from that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All commodity brokers are "leading" until you look at the actual data. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 (No assertion of notability). So tagged... again. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, notability is asserted. Not proven, mind, nor do I believe it ever will be. But it's technically asserted.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable vanity piece, self promo. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability has not been established (and doubt whether it can be in near future). Shovon (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD#A7. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Related discussion and closing rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commune Ango Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girofle[edit]

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More nominations

Gwen Gale (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not communities or villages. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. When it comes to place names in French départements (including overseas), the Petit Larousse is the ultimate reference. None of the places mentioned above are listed in it. I have verified that Thierry Caro is indeed an administrator on the French Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as per above. Corvus cornix_talk 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Everyone before you said delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As per my comments in the above discussion about Reunion communes. Corvus cornix_talk 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep in order to be consistent with my comments also in the other Reunion communities mass AFD. However I'm adding "weak" to this as there is no equivalent comment yet from a user such as Serviam stating that these places have been confirmed via Encarta. If these places are fictional, then I will be happy to change my vote. Otherwise my opinion on these AFDs remains the same as that of the other AFD set. 23skidoo (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IGN

As I understood that you would be interested in places very small even though there is not much or nothing to be said about them, I made an in-depth check of the names listed above at the back of my IGN maps. It appears that they all come from there but that many of them are not correctly copied. It also appears that the localisation given in other databases is not always accurate. We have:

Girofle : 20°56′44″S 55°30′11″E / 20.94556°S 55.50306°E / -20.94556; 55.50306 − Toponym for a natural zone. 1 building around.
Giroflé : 21°15′01″S 55°26′04″E / 21.25028°S 55.43444°E / -21.25028; 55.43444 − Toponym for an agricultural zone. About 50 or 100 buildings around.
Gol les Hauts : 21°15′01″S 55°26′04″E / 21.25028°S 55.43444°E / -21.25028; 55.43444 − Toponym for a populated place of about 250 buildings inside.
Halte-Là : 20°57′52″S 55°19′53″E / 20.96444°S 55.33139°E / -20.96444; 55.33139 − Toponym for a populated place of about 150 buildings inside.
Etc.

You should have a look at Géoportail for these first-hand maps. If you keep in mind that the names might not be accurate, maybe will you find the others. From my point of view, none is notable, indeed. I mean: what will the article say if even the locals don't know anything? Can't we simply use redirects to Category:Communes of Réunion? Whatever, I hope I helped you. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I would like to say that Réunion should be renamed to La Réunion. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;^[26] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

50 Hollowz Productions[edit]

Unnotable production company; no secondary sources provided; high extent of original reserach and self promotion. Bit Lordy (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable company who fail WP:MUSIC. Likely a use of Wikipedia as a social networking site. Created by a user named 50 Hollowz Productions, so it's also a WP:COI and self-bio. This is probably speedy deletable under G11. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, borders on speedable. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quality background information, company is capable of contacting Sony Music Entertainment, therefore the company must be somewhat legitimate. Documentation most likely used as informing purposes, but the article could use more input to receive an encyclopedic quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notorious 1 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC) — Notorious 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC doesn't cover record labels but 50 Hollowz definitely fails WP:ORG due to absence of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources nancy ^(talk) 10:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent night film[edit]

Delete - I was going to try and clean this up, but it fails notability guidelines and as far as I can tell, is unverifiable. I can't find the film or director on IMDb, or in a google search. Can see no coverage in any sources, let alone reliable ones. Beloved Freak 10:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails to meet WP:N. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn --T-rex 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ineligible for speedy and the copyvio has been taken care of. — _Maggot^Syn 11:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Rice Center[edit]

The 2007-03-22T09:23:26 edition is the same as paragraphs 2-5 of the Africa Rice Center webpage, and all the versions after that need to be deleted for copyright violation. It is very likely that User:AfricaRice is an Africa Rice Center member from the name. The webpage states that Proper citation is requested, but the Wikipedia article doesn't cite it properly and just lists it as an external link. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a program supported by the United Nations. There is nothing wrong with WP having an article on it. The article just needs secondary sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - One of the most important NGOs in Africa. A casual Google search confirms notability: [27]. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Comment) I'm not requesting the complete deletion of the article. The versions 2007-03-22T09:23:26 and later violate copyrights. The 2007-01-01T20:19:22 version is safe, and doesn't need to be deleted. - TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, we can't keep copyvios. Corvus cornix_talk 22:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability guidelines and I have removed the copyvio stuff. Article just needs to be rewritten to avoid copyvio. --Beloved Freak 10:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — as a former member of staff (1998–2003), it looks to me like the copyright violation has been dealt with. It is certainly not couched in the terms used by the Center itself in its publicity—GRM (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brechin#Education. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maisondieu Primary School[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable primary school, unreferenced - fails WP:VER. My motive in bringing this AfD is that most of the numerous, proliferating and utterly pointless articles about non-notable schools don't cite any references, but because they're schools we turn a blind eye. Like any other article they should be properly referenced e.g. link to school website or education authority. What do other editors think about this? Sorry about the rant! andy (talk) 09:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not notable. WP:WPSCH suggests that primary schools are not, in themselves, notable. This article makes no effort to say why this particular school is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brechin#Education. There must be some effort to show notab, none has been shown. WP is not a directory of transient information of who's running a school.--Triwbe (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brechin#Education per numerous precedents. TerriersFan (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Triwbe and TerriersFan as a topic notable within its parent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "a topic notable within its parent" mean? It sounds like anything related to a notable topic automatically becomes notable, which is contrary to WP:N - notability cannot be conferred. andy (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was unclear: a little too much shorthand, probably. A topic is notable within its parent—the header topic (a term that's stuck with me from Wikipedia:Summary style)—when it is of importance enough to discuss. WP:N regulates whether a topic is notable enough to stand alone, but it also addresses notability within the article in one specific sense, in its consideration of ""undue weight". (Not to be confused with WP:UNDUE, which is a subtopic of WP:NPOV.) Specifically, it says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." I agree that the subject does not seem currently notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it is of sufficient notability within the topic for inclusion there, and it is an appropriate handling according to policy mandate to preserve information where possible. My opinion would probably be very different if we were discussing, say, a specific McDonald's. :) In that case, barring extraordinary circumstances, I'd likely feel that the topic isn't notable within the parent. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brechin#Education per above comments. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 14:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The other editors said it best...and earlier. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 19:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Korpela[edit]

Non-notable TV presenter; is not involved in any of the main broadcasts in the WWE. D.M.N. (talk) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a google seach, and I can't find any reliable sources. -- iMatthew _T.C. 15:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He currently hosts the Pay Per View countdown shows, which are watch by nearly everyone that orders any of the WWE's many Pay Per Views. He also host the WWE 24-7 Preview show and host the History of the Intercontinental Championship on WWE 24/7 Online. Keep this up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.5.153 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this. This kid is up and coming and has a very bright future. Just Google him and see how much you will find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.5.153 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how many of those G-hits are from reliable third party sources? Nikki311 00:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think you should keep it along with those other things he hosts the bottom line, WWE specials (every month) and he did a bit of announcing on heat! I know these aren't the most notable or main shows but lots of people watch them! Well thats my opinion! Adster95 (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Adster95. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Web kai2000 (talk • contribs)

Delete, I can't find any reliable sources either. Non-notable as of now. Nikki311 18:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - but it appears to be going towards WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette in Europe[edit]

Basically, the article is just a list of unsourced, unverifiable guidebook-style information; Its a completely random collection of "helpful facts" that range somewhere between plain wrong and irrelevant. If the unencyclopaedic information is removed, almost nothing will remain.

I don't think that this article can be improved in a meaningful way. It would be much better if the really encyclopaedic information about Etiquette is integrated into the "Culture" section of the individual country and continent articles. (And leave the "helpful" travel information to Wikitravel ;-) This would also bring the etiquette into context with the overall culture.

I'm putting this up for a deletion discussion, because there was one editor on the talk page who liked it. However, I contacted the creator and main contributor of the page who agrees with the idea to delete it. So I hope this will not be overly controversial. Averell (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a guidebook or manual. A Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice or suggestions, or contain how-tos.--Serviam (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sources and some good content. The rest is a matter of improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "good content" could be easily integrated elsewhere. There are some sources, but the majority of content is unsourced and many sources are not of the highest quality. As for the improvement, the article exists for over a years, but it has not improved so far. See also the talk page. Averell (talk) 16:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to integrate this information elsewhere and how are they going to do it when this article has been deleted? And what of the editors who contributed this content? How will their contributions under our licence terms be honoured? Please see GFDL#Conditions which explains why you cannot treat other editors contributions so cavalierly. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is deleted, the history will still be around, if I'm not mistaken. Averell (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history is deleted along with the article and will not be visible. All contributing editors will thereby be snubbed. Not only is this illegal, it is rude. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that the history would also be deleted. However, it is not illegal (otherwise you could never delete an article on WP). Averell (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (now weak keep, see further down) - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. A possible encyclopedic approach might be to explain the origin of various customs, not just to list them in rule book format. Also, while there are sources cited, they are used to "support" generalizations where for most of them, sources supporting different rules could easily be found as well. Other than the article claims, many rules of polite behaviour vary considerably from country to country. --Latebird (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to be more an issue of style than content, as these statements could easily be rewritten as facts rather than as imperatives. E.g. "When you are visiting a house or flat, it is polite to remove your shoes." -> "It is considered polite to remove one's shoes when visiting a house or flat." Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A how-to guide remains a how-to guide, no matter how you phrase it. --Latebird (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are many articles about activities such as Surfing, Criticism or Vandalism which must necessarily say something about how these things are done. The point about how-to is a stylistic one - that Wikipedia articles should not read like instruction manuals with step-by-step instructions, troubleshooting guides, FAQs and the like. Correct the style and the article is then acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaken there. It's primarily the content that decides whether something is a how-to guide or an encyclopedic article. The article on Surfing doesn't contain enough of the information required to learn the sport, and it includes a large amount of background information not needed to learn it. That is not the case here. This article here is entirely sufficient to learn polite behaviour as understood by its authors and their sources, and it contains almost no background information on top of that. This limitation of content results in a clear violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. --Latebird (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Surfing contains paragraphs such as this

Surfing begins with the surfer eyeing a rideable wave on the horizon and then attempting to match its speed (by paddling or sometimes, by tow-in). Once the wave has started to carry the surfer forward, the surfer quickly jumps to his or her feet and proceeds to ride down the face of the wave, generally staying just ahead of the breaking part (white water) of the wave (in a place often referred to as "the pocket" or "the curl"). A common problem for beginners is not even being able to catch the wave in the first place, and one sign of a good surfer is being able to catch a difficult wave that other surfers cannot.

This is comparable with the entries in this article - giving the basic facts of how to do something but not being written in an instructional way. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck learning to surf with just those "instructions". --Latebird (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since we have the usual failure of imagination above by editors who seem interested only in deleting the article rather than improving it, I have started rewriting the article to demonstrate its potential. My method is simple - to look for sources and then work from them. I soon found an excellent source which covers this topic in scholarly way rather than being a travel/business guide. This indicates that there is a substantial field of politeness studies from which other sources may be found. I might go on to remove all the unsourced information in the article but will leave it for now so that editors may consider the full richness of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of imagination was with the previous authors of the article, not with those attesting their failure. If you're going to improve it, you'll probably end up with a complete rewrite. When doing so, please also take Mansford's arguments from below into account. --Latebird (talk) 07:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that this is simply a matter of style. To take the example from above: The fact that it's polite to remove your shoes is not encyclopaedic, no matter how you phrase it. It's just a random fact. Encyclopaedic would be: Why is it considered that people should take off their shoes? How did this rule evolve? Why is it important in the given society? This kind of thing. This is also in the surfing article: Of course it also describes what surfers do. But this is only a small part of the article, and it's information about what surfing is about, not how to do it. The article doesn't say "In surfing you have to set yourself firmly on the board. Then one must lean slightly forward, with arms spread." (or whatever it is you have to do...). Averell (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The typical stance of the expert surfer is shown in the article's many pictures. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to say delete, because etiquette is an encyclopedic topic, and this has the "ball of string" quality from lots of edits over the years, but what a mess. Although 36 sources may seem impressive, there appear to be hundreds of unsourced facts about "good manners in the old country". Then there's the overly broad nature of the topic, which seeks to describe etiquette in an area with dozens of different cultural groups. Generalizing about 700 million people is difficult; trying to get specific is confusing. The solution may be to start writing articles like "Etiquette in Germany and Austria" or "Etiquette in Scandinavia", etc., with sourcing to travel guides and websites. Etiquette in Europe would continue to exist, but mostly as a navigation page to a more manageable presentation of the topic. Mandsford (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be surprised about the differences already between Germany and Austria, eg. when addressing people. Austrians loooove titles, and use them in ways that would make people in Germany just look at you funny. There are many examples like this, often even within the same country. This topic is not just a can of worms, but a veritable truckload of cans... --Latebird (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's not do this. I fully agree that this problem exists. But one of the main articles was that "passing" editors used it as a trashdump for their funny information, with no one feeling responsible for quality. If the article is split, I fear that the problem will just be multiplied. Subpages should only be created after it is shown that sufficient encyclopaedic content exists for them.

That's why I suggested putting this in the "culture" section of the individual country pages, or in Culture of Europe, for example. I still think that "Etiquette" is a sub-topic of "Culture", and should be treated as such. Then, if we really see that there is enough stuff on "Etiquette" to warrant an stand-alone article, by all means break it out again. In any case, let's only break out the subsections that are actually worth it... Averell (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subdividing the topic by country is the main problem since it encourages repetition and parochial, nationalistic content. The topic should be addressed at European level and divided by the differing types of etiquette: table manners, speech, business customs and so on. For example, one issue is the extent to which the language has preserved the distinction between the formal and intimate second-person which is now archaic in English (you/thou). French and German have this (vous/tu and Sie/Du) but I am not sure about the other languages. The etiquette of such usage is quite involved and so a European-level treatment would be most interesting. I expect that linguistic scholars have studied this and so good sources should be easy to find. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with its companion articles Etiquette in Asia, Etiquette in Australia and New Zealand, etc. These were originally one article and splitting them up only created more "balls of string" as an editor above commented. I acknowledge that the problem is one of style and the concept of these articles isn't so bad, but I'd like to see them canned nonetheless. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is unsourced, inappropriate content then it is easy to remove as I have just demonstrated. By keeping the article rather than deleting it we maintain the article's history so that the previous detailed content may be referred to for further development. Deletion would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater and so disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep: If the article has problem with lack of sources, then add references, do not delete the article. An underdeveloped article needs rewrite and development, not deletion. The topic is important, however it should be made clear which country it is describing. Europe has various countries, thus there may be regional variations on etiquette. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Colonel Warden's edits removed a lot of cruft my problem is still that it hasn't been demonstrated that this article could be more than just a listing of acceptable behaviours. In fact nobody in this whole discussion has defended the article's original content. As far as I can see, it's not even clear that the topic actually exists as a coherent thing. For the history, if we really need to preserve it we can probably move the whole thing to a different namespace to keep it around for reference (don't know if that is a possible solution, though...) Averell (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the lede to demonstrate that we have a proper topic here. Since you still don't understand, here's a small bibliography that I found in a few seconds:

Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (Eds.) (2001). Linguistic politeness across boundaries: The case of Greek and Turkish.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena.
E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Eelen, G. (2001). A critique of politeness theories. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.
Escandell-Vidal, V. (1996). Towards a cognitive approach to politeness.
K. Turner (Eds.), Contrastive semantics and pragmatics. Oxford, UK:Pergamon.
Laver, J. (1981). Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting, Conversational routine. The Hague, Netherlands
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. New York: Ballantine Books.
Watts, R. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

None of these texts appear to be guidebooks, right? It seems apparent there is more to be said about this than a simple catalogue of do's and don'ts. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep One of a set of important articles on regional etiquette. Is more efficent to have these grouped at the continent level to have to drill down into sub-sub-articles on each country. Especially because etiquette in nearby countries (i.e. Germany and Austria, or Argentina and Uruguay) is pretty similar. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A notable topic, as demonstrated by the many examples of sources that Colonel Warden lists above. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The five day for discussion are more than up, and clearly there is no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden has demonstrated that there is scholarly research on Etiquette, though the European part is still a bit fuzzy. In any case, it doesn't seem that it'll do any good if this stuff is randomly moved around. Therefore I suggest we just leave the article pages as they are, and see if and how they can improve. Maybe after some work is done it'll become clearer if it makes sense to merge or split those pages. On a side note, all that was said here applies equally to the other Etiquette on <continent> articles. Averell (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides listing sources here (which is kind of pointless), Colonel Warden has also removed all the unsourced cruft (at least 80% of the text) from the article. What remains appears to be reasonably sourced, and seems sufficiently encyclopedic in content. I have thus changed my recommendation above to weak keep. --Latebird (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way an article on this topic can be aquatically sourced. Furthermore it is a how-to guide --T-rex 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the article has been sourced. Your comment indicates that you have not read the article and so should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is certainly not how-to-guide. It describes some etiquette, and this types of articles on etiquette, customs, culture are never how-to-guide. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudiighar Von Rjchthon Lundgren[edit]

This is a quite obvious hoax. This was previously tagged as a PROD, reasons for contesting were given on the talk page. The author has created an earlier version of this article at Rudiighar von rjchthon lundgren, which has been deleted several times. Mattinbgn\^talk 08:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and author banned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 speedy delete as a WP:HOAX A Google search turns up only 2 results here both from Google. Obvious hoax. If he's genuine why are there are no onine sources for such a supposedly notable fighter? Artene50 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a hoax. It has already had an afd here, and was speedied as a hoax. Does it qualify under G4 if it was speedied before the AFD finished? Either way, delete. --Beloved Freak 11:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Skys[edit]

Non-notable, news coverage limited to one event (arrest), blp page with multiple unsourced claims, COI problem, etc etc Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Eric Skys biography page discussion. — Athaenara ✉ 09:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to qualify for deletion per the policy on biographies related to only one event, a criminal case that wasn't particularly important. See WP:BIO1E for further detail.--Finalnight (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. A splash of news covering his arrest, but very little WP:RS coverage otherwise. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it really should be on Wikinews. Question: is it? — Athaenara ✉ 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerta del sol monterrey[edit]

Spanish-language article, exactly the same as this article with same title on Spanish Wikipedia. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 07:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC) And the spanish-language article's just been deleted because artículo de autopromoción. I'm guessing that means advertisement. That's probably a G11 so I'll speedy the article. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - it would be helpful to know what it actually says before tagging for speedy deletion. It may not qualify. I don't speak Spanish, so can't help there, but if it's a reasonable article, may just need translating. --Beloved Freak 11:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

further comment - looking at google results, deletion looks likely, but I'd like to be sure. --Beloved Freak 11:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 I'm pretty fluent in Spanish. It looks like it's a promotional article for a band ("Puerta del Sol is more than a band...") that doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Helps[edit]

Very little material, and provides no explanation of notability. Original author has had two weeks to expand the article. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - can find no significant coverage from independent reliable sources, or any other reasons would demonstrate notability. As far as I know there is still a failure of consensus for the notability of individual episodes, but there is nothing here to demonstrate notability in my opinion.--Beloved Freak 11:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable coverage about this episode. -- Whpq (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toyota Hilux. Other article noted by Enigmaman is already a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota SR5[edit]

Individual model is not notable. Additionally, 1989 Toyota SR5 should be deleted, as it was a duplicate created by the same author. Enigma ^message 07:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Toyota Hilux as the main article covers the entire series of pickup trucks -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Brazilian[edit]

Yet another Brazilian ethnicity article with no significant content, no sources, and no population estimate. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Brazilian and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourgian Brazilian for other nominated articles in this genre. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't show why this would be a notable term. Seems to me like it has as much sense as listing possible nationality combination. --Twinzor (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This ceaseless flood of Brazilian ethnicity articles is getting tedious. Brazil + another country does not equal an article. Reyk _YO! 10:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 11:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say this community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)*Delete please someone block this user's account for consistent, disruptive absuses of Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also see North American Brazilian which is similarly empty. JuJube (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I see no point in claiming pseudo-notability for any arbitrary combination of two nationalities, be one of them "Brazilian" or not. What next? Irish Japanese? Spanish Australian and introducing acoustic Australian? Where will it end? I say it should end here, with block-deletion of all such articles which don't have established notability. -- Korax1214 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unworthy. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete with no prejudice to recreation as a redirect. nancy ^(talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Om nom[edit]

Non-notable neologism; either delete or redirect to something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a joke! This is a weird neologism, and is impending AfD food. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 07:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nn meme, and no content/links to prove otherwise. --Twinzor (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Om nom nom it as non-notable Internet meme. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Om nom is pretty much synonymous with lolcats - redirect it there. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Om is where the heart is (sorry, couldn't resist) -- Delete. More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and/or Merge into Cookie Monster. Is there any mechanism in the MediaWiki software to track how often a given page is viewed? I came to this because I saw Om nom used and wanted to know what it meant. I wonder how often other people have wanted to know the same thing? Do we have any way to find out? In any case, a redirect is cheap, so leaving one behind pointing to Cookie Monster seems like the right thing to do, since that would get people the answers they seek when the search for om nom (as long as Cookie Monster gets augmented with the information about the colloquial usage. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=om+nom

D is for delete that's good enough for me. JuJube (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to Let it WP:SNOW, WP:SNOW, WP:SNOW. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (om) nom. Grutness...wha? 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cookie Monster just like om nom nom nom currently does. Kyz (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence for notability. Same goes for om nom nom nom. -Colfer2 (talk) 13:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Owens[edit]

Exact copy of Mike Shinoda, except with the name 'Christian Owens' instead of 'Mike Shinoda' in most places. Unable to find sources which say he exists. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 07:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is obviously a (poorly made) page copy, the infobox still says his name is "Michael Kenji Shinoda". More proof of page copy is that the page was apparently made in one edit by a newly registered user. --Twinzor (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete. Article is verifiable and shows notability. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wendell Cox[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page is the glorified cv of a lower tier policy wonk; vanity is apparent throughout the entry Cristo00 (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please remain civil when discussing subjects of articles. I don't have time to really look into this now, but a quick google search turns up results in google, google news, google books and google scholar. --Beloved Freak 11:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely verifiable and there is enough coverage from secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 11:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous AFD was in 2005 but I don't see anything that's changed to remove his notability. Non-trivial sources, evidence of national prominence. Good enough for me. Any issues regarding it reading like a vanity article is more a style issue. 23skidoo (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's well known internationally as proponent of roads. A very quick news search will pull up hundreds of articles. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article already contains sources to establish notability, and a cursory search easily finds more. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced, nothing worth merging. Sandstein 17:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current issues in Buddhism[edit]

Context-less list of articles and words that are not coherent or useful to readers. As I've argued elsewhere, this has no clear criteria and isn't particularly useful. Also, virtually nothing links there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as Category:Buddhism and current issues seems to already server the same purpose, has more content, and more pages linking to it. --Twinzor (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buddhism. For example, the links might be added to the See also section. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Buddhism[edit]

No content, no significant edit to it in over a year. This article acts as an index to a list of articles that don't exist. Also, virtually nothing links there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/comment Seems like this would be the proper name for an article dealing with the issues listed in the stub, as it is with for example Christianity and Islam (via redirect). I'm not sure if it's worth keeping as it is though. --Twinzor (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with the topic or title. When someone feels like expanding the article he or she will. If deleted then it will be restarted. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ditto to what Northwestgnome said. There is certainly enough scholarly material (and there are certainly enough Buddhist women!) for the subject to be notable and expandable, even if the current revision of the article doesn't demonstrate it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The greatest prayer is patience" - Siddharta. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. Current state is no reason for deletion. Article has much potential and just needs a little improvement. --Mizu onna sango15/^Discuss 20:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not the case that this article needs a little improvement - it's not an article at all and it needs a lot of improvement. I agree that this article would be nice to have, but there is presently no content on it at all. What is the point of keeping it? If anyone is willing to write it, that's fine. If no one is willing to add any content, why should this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wiki and such fragmentary starts are expected per our editing policy. If imperfection bothers you then please stick to the good stuff which is mostly complete but note that this is only about one thousandth of the total.Colonel Warden (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure; I have no problem with imperfection or stub articles, but this is a non-article without any content that has been just that for a long time and there are no prospects of it changing. The WikiProject for it hasn't even prioritized it. The more articles like this that Wikipedia contains, the lower the quality of the encyclopedia. I am all in favor of deleting an article with no content that is essentially a redirect and has not been edited in any substantial way for over a year. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general standard for deletion decisions is whether the topic is notable, not whether the current article is a quality article. Imperfect articles can be improved. I don't think there's any serious question that the topic is notable. The usual solution to a really bad article on a notable topic (opinionated original research and similar) is to stubbify. This article is already essentially a stub, and doesn't have any really egregious policy violations. So keep it. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you believe articles should be deleted if they haven't been improved after a certain period of time, suggest arguing for a change in the deletion policy reasons for deletion to reflect this view. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's helpful, thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not even a stub, just a note someone left, user:Deeb to be exact, whom I notified. -- 790 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content, unsourced, not even useful as a list because the topics listed here don't have articles. Sandstein 17:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - it's nothing but a place holder. Absolutely no prejudice to recreation in the future should someone wish to write an encyclopaedic article or even a stub. nancy ^(talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep per recent improvements. nancy ^(talk) 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lament It is sad that editors would rather pontificate here than make the minimal effort required to make something of this article. A quick search soon located an entire book on the subject and I have made a start by dipping into this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with the Colonel. The deletion votes above are lame. The article is now a bona fide stub, and fits Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The Transhumanist 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, deleting remaining redirect. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject (discourse)[edit]

This seems to me to be an essay/dicdef, rather than something expandable into a full article. Author was apparently "Hjørland, B" (User:BirgerH), who authored 4 out of 6 articles in the Literature section.

Delete as nominator SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral per expansion. Still not sure enough to swing to keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Correct article is Subject (philosophy) and it already exists. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reply from author) I have enlarged the entry, added many more references and views and made a clear distinction between subject understand in this article and subject understood in Subject (philosophy).

I do hope this entry is not deleted.--BirgerH (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for improvement and potential reintroduction (under this title or perhaps a broader one). Has potential, but the style currently used is too conversational and unfocused. No slight intended to the article creator. Townlake (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(SECOND reply from auther))

I have now added a section about S.R. Ranganathans definitio9n of the term subject as well as a quote by the linguist Hutchins, why he found this term problematic. Birger Hjørland --BirgerH (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and consider merging new content into Subject (philosophy), possibly under a new section of that article. Otherwise this distinction is too minor for an encyclopedia. Perhaps better suited for Wiktionary. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nancy ^(talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lee (American actor)[edit]

Notability - only minor parts in un-cited movies Mfield (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims of notability must be sourced by reliable, third party sources. I've searched for reliable sources on this guy, and I have come up with nothing.--SJP (talk) 06:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm an inclusionist, but this guy might scrape over the line. He's a regular on the Colin Quinn show, has worked with Spike Lee, was on the nominating committee for the SAG awards... If it's deleted, turn the page into a disambig page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to IMDb, The Colin Quinn Show lasted a grand total of three episodes, and the other (un)credits are insignificant. Also, there's already a dab page at Danny Lee. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not referenced, otherwise I as per Richard Cavell above. -- Kipof (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 R3 implausible search term. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Black (CBC Program) (disambiguation)[edit]

unnecessary page Napierk (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong forum to discuss the deletion of this page. This is a redirect page and so it should be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:CSD#R3, implausible search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn. — _Maggot^Syn 15:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syntyche[edit]

Looks like a dictionary definition. Not sure how much it can be expanded beyond that, although this sort of page might be a useful start. In any case, it's already in Wiktionary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Quite ambiguously phrased, too, so it looks like it might also meet CSD A1. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment - we might need an expert to weigh in here. Syntyche appears to be a given name, the root being the Greek word for 'affable'. But Syntyche was also the name of a person who is notable enough to appear in the Bible. So she could be worth an article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Maybe it should be given a needs-expert-attention tag rather than deleted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but tag for expert attention. Perhaps a bit ironic, given that I nominated this AfD, but Mr. Cavell has a good point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged per above. Are you withdrawing your nom, then? Or should the AfD proceed ? Plvekamp (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, I see no reason to pursue the AfD any further. The way the article was written, it sounded a lot like a dictionary definition, but it's clear now that the article can be expanded so that it sounds much better and so that it is considerably more informative. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of scope for expansion by using material from these 767 books and these 366 scholarly articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgian Brazilian[edit]

Yet another Brazilian ethnicity article with no real content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgian Brazilian). This article does attempt to estimate the Luxembourgian-Brazilian population at 25,000. However, the source used for it is misrepresented. While described as being titled "Luxembourgers in Brazil", it is actually just statistical data about Luxembourg, written in Portuguese, and published by a chamber of commerce in Brazil, and does not have the claimed title. Nowhere does the page mention Luxembourgers in Brazil or the number 25,000. Thus, there are no valid sources on the page, nor could I find any, and the article should be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- see my reasoning below on Georgian Brazilian. Reyk _YO! 02:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say that community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and somebody with authority approach the editor for this... it just keeps going on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (a page in Brazilian Portuguese about Luxembourg is hardly proof that there's a sizable Luxembourgian community in Brazil!), and someone take an axe to Template:Demographics of Brazil - there are a couple dozen more articles like this one. (Some of them have actual content, but the majority don't.) Many of the numbers in the other articles look highly suspect, too: Syrian Brazilian claims "3,000,000 Syrian Brazilians", which would amount to a rather ridiculous 15% of Syria's population, and Lebanese Brazilian makes the even bolder claim of "6,000,000 Lebanese Brazilians" - by comparison, the population of Lebanon is only 4.2 million. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Syrian Brazilian and Lebanese Brazilian articles do have sources which support the claimed populations. (I don't know where the sources got their information from, or if the Brazilian census acts about ethnic ancestries, but at least the sources exist.) Also, consider that there are more people in the United States of Irish descent than there are people of any ethnicity in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland combined, so the ratios claimed are not impossible. Other sources support the idea that the Lebanese descendants in Brazil outnumber those in Lebanon. [28] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is this a joke article? Nick Dowling (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How random. No indication of cultural or historical significance. Moreover, odd that this article should exist while more plausible ones, such as "Luxembourgian German" or "Peruvian Brazilian," do not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability Artene50 (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unworthy. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 19:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Brazilian[edit]

Like certain other Brazilian ethnicity articles which have been nominated recently, this article contains no actual information that could not be guessed from the title of the article. (The article had previously been submitted for proposed deletion but that was contested.) There is no indication of how many persons of Georgian descent may live in Brazil, no sources are cited, and I could not find any sources myself. I recommend that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the nomination. If we have a similar article for every possible combination of two countries, we'll be swamped with something like 40,000 of these things and the vast majority of them will be, like this article, useless and content-free. Reyk _YO! 02:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am Brazilian and I say that community is not notable in my country. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agreed. User: cristo00 June 29
Delete and Cease and desist what happens when a Georgian Brazilian female and a Barbadian Brazilian male have a son? Is that a Georgian Barbadian Brazillian? And then if their son grows up and falls for the daughter of a Luxembourgian Brazilian and Croatian Brazilian (who would then be a Luxembourgian Croatian Brazilian), would their child be:
Lessie... I think that's 2 to the N power, right??? These aren't articles, they are mathematical combinations. This is rapidly becoming harmful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the kind of thing that could, conceivably, fit in an encyclopedia if there was actually something to say about it and some sources that mention it. Right now though it's a pretty content-free piece of original research, and I don't see any reason not to delete it. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and all others like it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't want to be waxxy, but this truly the exception that proves the rule. There isn't pages like this (those are the keywords here. like this. I am aware of others for other countries and even for Brazil itself) for any other country-ethnicity combo. Not every single possible combination needs a page. Also there's no reliable sources for notability. In fact there's no verification of this ethnicity group existing and the page is mostly OR. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unworthy. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phi kappa tau gamma nu[edit]

Non-notable local chapter of a fraternity. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This seems like little more than a vanity article. No notability outside the fraternity plus no sources provided to show notability equals deletion. Sorry for the confusion.S. Dean Jameson 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most local chapters of fraternities are non-notable per WP:ORG. This article has no sources from outside Wikipedia itself other than the chapter's own web site, the national fraternity's web site, and the chapter's listing on the university's web site. Those sources are sufficient to confirm the chapter's existence but they are not independent sources which could be used to establish the chapter's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete admitted spamvertisement for a non-notable company for search engine optimization. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNTRide[edit]

Originally deleted via PROD and contested. Original deletion rationale was, "No assertion of notability. Fails WP:CORP." SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Google hits are all self promotion at various social networking sites. No other sources provided for verification of material. And the article is pretty terrible, at that. Naerii 01:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people are completely unbelievable. The article isn't finished. The article was barely started a a few days ago. If you knew anything about search engine optimization you would know that using social networking sites is a way to gain FREE quick exposure. I do know that TNTRide's mission this year is to fully optimize their website as inexpensive as possible. Look at TNTRide.com for a main source. Look at their branded clothing. Did I mention there's a trademark? I'm asking for a reconsideration here not a war.

Ebayrockstar (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and salt as spam, then block author for intentional abuse. If you plan on trying to use Wikipedia as free publicity, then you deserve a block. Wikipedia is not a hosting service, PR firm, social networking site, or advertiser. Optimize this garbage on someone else's dime. It has no place here. DarkAudit (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of comics spin-offs[edit]

Too broad list (All publishers, any spin-off), Original Research. The article cannot possibly be attributed to a reliable source. The definition of "comic" and "comic book" is confusing. It seems to be using Characters rather than Comic Titles. Duggy 1138 (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't figure this list out. On the one hand, it states, as one might expect, that "spin-offs that take established characters from one comic book and give them their own book or series". However, I'm fairly certain that there is no comic book series for "Franklin Richards" or "Falcon", who were characters that came along in the Fantastic Four and Captain America, respectively. The original synthesis comes from the "criteria" that the author uses, and I'm not sure whether that's consistent. Mandsford (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. if a spin-off is worthy of a mention, it can be mentioned on the comic it was spun off of --T-rex 04:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly this is a broad and spanning topic, that could use clean up; however, the first place to start should be a clean up, rewrite or original research tag, not a PROD or AFD. This is clearly a notable device used in comic book publication, and the page itself a "spin-off" (pun fully intended) of the Spin-off (media) page. Clearly, this is a page that could use much refinement, (Removing characters and simply listing titles (eponmys or anthology) and listing them according my first suggestion); but, it seems to be notable, specifically with comparable subject pages for TV, film, video games, and novels existing. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overly broad and encyclopedically useless list, as very often what it boils down to is connecting characters where they appeared first, which doesn't really mean anything a lot of the time (in the case of Sabretooth, e.g.) Yeah, Sabretooth first appeared in Iron Fist, but it should be obvious to anyone familiar with the literature that Sabretooth is a spin-off of X-Men, since that's where the character developed the enduring popularity he's since enjoyed, and any list that states otherwise is essentially meaningless. Iron Fist has no more to do with Sabretooth than Galactus does. Ford MF (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Spin-off determined based on the publication? the content of the publication? a specific character? a specific location? anything remotely related to anything which may have been internal or external to the presumed "parent" of the spin-off?

Let's see, just to start with, we have woefully unsubstantiatable subjective criteria which could potentially cause nearly every publication article in Wikipedia to be listed. ("But we wouldn't include all of those!" - "Why not? Just because you subjectively choose not to?")

In addition (outsourced from the subjectiveness) this is rather clearly WP:OR. It requires more than just witnessing two items, it requires a judgement concerning a comparison of two items.

Let's compare this to the bibliography pages (which I vehemently opposed the deletion of).

Those were merely listing and identifying the appearance of a character. No judgement concerning the character, merely that they appeared. Falls directly under the section concerning primary sources at WP:OR.

This is looking at two items, making a judgement concerning whether one is a "spin-off" of the other, and then listing the result of that judgement in the article.

A list of publications that Superman may have appeared in? No problem, it's easily verifiable.

A list of presumed "spin-offs"? Big problems of subjectivity and WP:OR.

Sooo... - jc37 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - per my comments above. - jc37 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Le Coeur Saignant Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commune Ango[edit]

Procedural Nomination for article re-PROD'd after having had a declined PROD. There are two main concerns: a) verifiability of the place's existence and b) notability of the place. It is my understanding that if an inhabited place is verifiable, that place is intrinsically notable. However, it has been a while since I have been involved in a debate on that matter and consensus may have changed. Thanks for your input. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the reason for AfD, edit history and editors involved are essentially identical:

Comment The first appears to exist and I think that provides inherent notability as that consensus has not changed as far as I'm aware. The latter gets a lot of false positives, something philosophical? _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep All~~ - Consensus has not changed on the inherent notability of towns/villages/population centers (I can't imagine it ever changing). All appear to exist. [29][30][31][32] --Oakshade (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now based on Thierry Caro's comments. I would like to scrutinize available sources on these places, but I don't know if i will get around to that. There just seems to be too many unknowns with these. --Oakshade (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all as definitely verifiable communities. This isn't the place to attempt to change an established consensus anyway. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are not communities or villages. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, guys. I am from Réunion. I was born there. I lived there until I was 17. Then came back in 2004. Stayed there until 2007. I am Reunionese. I speak the local creole. I love that place. And I am an admin on the French Wikipedia. I have created the French Mascarene Portal. I have written three good articles and one featured article about my island. All in all, I have initiated about 1000 pages about Réunion there. Today I started eight. Thus, I would be very pleased if there was many articles about it in the English Wikipedia. I would love to see a complete portal dedicated to it here. Yet, I have to maintain that all this stuff listed up there should be deleted as soon as possible. The source AlbertHerring said he used to create these pages is erroneous. Biruitorul told him. I told him, and he eventually said that he would back up a deletion request. What more is required to make you understand that we are talking about tiny groups of houses with no more than a few families − if only they do exist? All the pages that show up on Google are from automated databases set to provide a commercial link related to any square meter on Earth. Nobody with local knowledge wrote them. They cannot be trusted, indeed. There are many mistakes inside. And inventions. Inventions that it would be insane to rely on, unless you are unwillingly wirting Encarta from the antipods. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect (it sounds like you know a lot about this) without a RS showing that it doesn't exist, the large number of RS saying it does wins... Hobit (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are clearly not reliable on this. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than one person saying that, how can you know that? A web search turns up a large number of references to some of the places involved. Not saying the might not be wrong copies of bad data, but they are reliable sources (google maps for example). They might be wrong, but there needs to be some way to show it. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, the only way to do it is to look at the Google maps satellite pics and that is indeed WP:OR. Nevertheless, I suggest WP:IAR: The sources, commercial data scrapers which all picked up the same clumsy data dump years ago, are wrong, these are not villages or communities. However, if consensus at en.Wikipedia is such that any farm on the planet which happens to have a postal name rates an article here, then so it'll be. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is OR. I mean looking at a map is consulting a RS, at least in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Corvus cornix_talk 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we have never settled this question. the nearest I can recall is that on the UK Ordinance Survey maps, where names are often assigned to individual farms, are agreed to be deleted. if that can be clearly shown to be the case, by the total absence from gazetteers, etc., and an inspection of the map is relevant if it is obvious, just like the inspection of any other source. But if it is a collection of dwellings amounting to a hamlet, I think it is relevant as a place. This may need a more general discussion with time beyond the 5 days. I'm not sure about the postal address criterion, because the UK postal service certainly did, and perhaps still does, deliver to named houses if the name is known. And what about a traditional country estate, where several dependent families live in dependent separate houses in addition to the main one--is that a place? DGG (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These places are not villages (the single sentence is misleading), but hamlets or place names (lieux-dits). Their notability is almost nonexistent, and they would not reasonably be expanded in the future. Even without taking into account their size, they're not listed as census locations by INSEE;^[33] by contrast, a place with no or very few inhabitants would have some notability if it is recognized as a commune by INSEE (e.g. Rouvroy-Ripont). Korg (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip McRae[edit]

Contested prod, but subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY notability standards Grsz ^talk 00:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I found a few sources 1 2 3; there's tons of stuff here that would seem to indicate notability. Naerii 01:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naerii's references have me convinced that sports reporters regard him as noteworthy. There is quite a lot of analysis of him. He's young and at the start of his career, and is at least partly noteworthy because he has a famous dad, but he's noteworthy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see how his father should have any effect on his notability. He should be notable for his actions, not someone else's. Black ngold29 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment You are correct, his father doesn't, there is a specific standard on this that notability is not inhereted. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are definitely things that make him noteworthy right now, ie the draft just occurred so sports reporters have to write about something and players who are children of former players are always written about when the draft comes up, this does not make him notable as notability is not inherented. He will most likely eventually play professionally and when he does his article can be recreated. The disputer of the prod used the reason that he won 3 state championships, however championships at that level are hardly indicative of individual notability or we would have thousands of highschool players from all sports on wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not professional, yet: therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. No other valid assertion of notability. ccwaters (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in many reliable sources isn't a valid assertion of notability? Naerii 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not when all these articles are pretty much there because of one event. So its a case of WP:BLP1E at the moment. Eventually I am sure he will be notable for other reasons but at the moment he only has articles because the draft just happened a week or so ago. So he is notable for that one event. -Djsasso (talk) 15:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP1E. Black ngold29 20:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BIO explicitly states that coverage by reliable sources must be non-trivial. A note along the lines of "The Blues drafted the son of Basil McRae in the 2nd round" isn't one. I agree that the odds a second rounder will play professionally are very good, and if he does, an article will be appropriate then. RGTraynor 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once he plays professionally or wins a major junior award (read MVP of the OHL or Memorial Cup, or something along those lines), the article can be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual in question does not meet notability, regardless of his father. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, without prejudice to recreation if he ever goes pro. This was a difficult call. However, it came down to not finding any stories about him winning the MVP award mentioned by the sole keep. Winners of similar MVP awards in the American college ranks get a lot of coverage, and I saw nothing like that for this guy. Blueboy 96 16:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Allen (ice hockey)[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:HOCKEY notability standards Grsz ^talk 00:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails WP:N. Has not won any major awards to otherwise indicate notability. Can be recreated when and if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -Djsasso (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He was drafted pretty highly, but he currently has done nothing to warrant notability. Black ngold29 01:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. He's at least a year away from playing professionally. RGTraynor 02:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He must either be a professional or win a significant award in juniors to be significant. Thus far, he has done neither. Patken4 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was named MVP at the 2008 U18 WC, isn't that major junior award? --Krm500 (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends if you consider the U18 a significant tournament. -Djsasso (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on his being named MVP of the 2008 IIHF World U18 Championships. Let's be honest, I hate it around draft day because so many not-notable players have articles created. But Jake Allen is a bit different for me. Although this tournament does not have the notability of the WJC or WC, it is the "3rd" major yearly IIHF men's championship and does have a heavy media following. I would typically say that playing in the tournament itself does not produce any notability, but the additional coverage that comes with winning an MVP award in any tournament does. If WP:HOCKEY states junior player notability as winning a major award, I argue that Jake Allen meets that requirement. You have to consider, this tournament features players from the top leagues (professional and amateur) in the world, not simply the CHL or NCAA. Yet, CHL and NCAA players can have articles created if they win a major award. Why should the top scholastic player (a major award in all CHL leagues) have an article, while the MVP of a major IIHF tournament does not? – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Borowiecki[edit]

IP deleted prod. Player fails WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:HOCKEY notability standards Grsz ^talk 00:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet notability requirements. -Djsasso (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Djsasso. Black ngold29 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE and the WP:HOCKEY notability standards. Fifth round picks do not often make the major leagues, and going to Clarkson, any professional play might be four years away, quite aside from that very few pros come out of that program. Unfortunately, we see this syndrome every year, where a raft of junior league players get written up for articles just because they're drafted, and many never see a professional game. RGTraynor 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league nor competed at the highest level in an amateur league. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He would either have to play professionally or win the Hobey Baker. Patken4 (talk) 22:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability standards. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A search of Google Books reveals this term is in fairly common use, so it's not OR. Canley (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbelt-Sunbelt shift[edit]

Non-notable and as it current stands it is inaccurate. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the title of the article could be changed to something like Southward Migration within the United States, and Frostbelt-Sunbelt Shift could be a synonym identified in the first paragraph of the article. The text of the article definitely needs work but this is a good start. Surely if one researches the literature there would be some research on this that would form the basis for a good wikipedia article? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be no overall History of migration within the United States or similar type of article. There is some coverage beginning with Demographic_history_of_the_United_States#Rural_flight but that is a much broader article. This is a major trend and this is one of the names by which demographers know it (albeit with variants such as "snowbelt" or "migration"), and it's at least as significant as Great Migration (African American) and successor migrations. Just needs more/better sources. --Dhartung | Talk 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nn WP:OR --T-rex 04:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Richard's rename proposal makes sense). Notable. Inaccuracies should be corrected. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That map has to go. There is no evidence of an outward shift in California migration. California's population is going up, not down. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is going to be kept it needs to metion use in other countries of which there are few. Need to avoid systemic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, spam. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Base Urban Regeneration Specialists[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable company. Reyk _YO! 02:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Poorly formed and invalid discussion for deletion. The sources are good enough to assert notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wyngard Tracy[edit]

He is not notable during this days his article must delete.

Delete. It has poor biography!. --Gabriel mark (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed the malformed AfD nomination and decline to participate further in the discussion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor biography? The biography section of that article is very much filled with citations. And citations mean that it's true and thus not poor. This nomination is clearly of bad faith, and an act of deletionism to a very notable article, by some noob whose edits are purely very unconstructive and can be considerd as vandalism. I suggest to you people to now close this nomination as I predict that this clearly has no chance of being supported for deletion. I predict that almost all, if not all, following comments will be keep. -- Felipe Aira 08:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Altough the first ref doesn't seem to work, he seems notable enough, and the article qualifies as a valid stub. --Twinzor (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Felipe Aira & Twinzor. -iaN LOPEZ 1115 09:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An act of bad faith nomination. Also, AfD is not based on whether the article is poorly constructed/written. Per above. Tracy is one among the respected TV personalities in the Philipipines. --Efe (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Felipe Aira and everyone else. Nominator himself is very notorious for making unnecessary articles and edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are independent reliable cites in the article that fulfill verifiability and notability.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those times where I love to say that this AfD is truly a poor example of why articles are subject to this process in the process. Wyngard Tracy is notable as a celebrity in the Philippines, even if many young people like myself do not know him that well other than being a judge on Pinoy Idol. Likewise, when someone becomes notable, that notability usually sticks, something proven in the article from my point of view. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Time to bring out the skis... --Howard the Duck 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close - nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Purdy[edit]

Google doesn't seem to have any relevant hits for this band. Non-notable musician. Reyk _YO! 23:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION- I was not aware that there was a legitimate article there before and should have checked. Reyk _YO! 01:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nominator, please check page history prior to AFD! A vandal changed this page from being about a NZ Olympic boxer to a musician. I have reverted the page (which has also removed the AFD template). dramatic (talk) 23:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as original AFD was based upon a different article that was either through good faith error or vandalism transposed over the original. 23skidoo (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28organizations_and_companies%29

[1]