Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 18: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:26, 18 June 2007

< June 17	June 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Stogo

Person fails WP:BIO; PROD was contested in last October. Although the aticle might seem like a hoax, it is indeed about a real person. But the article does not cite secondary sources, only books written by the person. Google shows that he is quoted, once in a while, in newspaper articles, or mentioned briefly; but I did not find any substantial coverage about him (i.e. about his biography). Without that however, the subject is not notable, and the article not verifiable. I propose to delete, con panna. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As it stands, the article reads like a back page blurb. Would need a total re-write and good secondary sources before it stood a chance. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article's claim to notability is circular; this is probably culled from the subject's own press bio. --Nonstopdrivel 12:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie (phrase)

seems just a catch phrase, without significant cultural references about which we can write.--K.C. Tang 09:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Adequately covered by the entry here. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more important is need than is said in List of French phrases used by English speakers#C. Monkeyblu e 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above --Lucy-marie 10:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially original research. --Nonstopdrivel 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Edtropolis 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common and widely used phrase in English; appears in songs etc.; as deserving as Have one's cake and eat it too etc. JJL 17:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Adequately addressed on the C'est la vie page, although that article also contains a whole lot of other junk, apparently in an attempt to catalog every time the phrase has been used in any form of media. Propaniac 19:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, now that I take another look at C'est la vie, that article only disambiguates between a radio show, the article up for deletion, and a comic strip that has no article at all. If this article is deleted, C'est la vie will have nothing to disambiguate, and so I'm not sure where a short definition of the phrase (that would have been at home on the dab page) could be placed. That bugs me a bit. Propaniac 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like a good opportunity to make that a regular dab page without the phrase-related stuff. JJL 19:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — List of French phrases used by English speakers takes care of this one. *Cremepuff 222* 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is redundant because List of French phrases used by English speakers already explained it adequately. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Kylohk 16:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Phantom of Manhattan (musical)

Crystalballism. Complete lack of information. And, considering the fact that Andrew Lloyd Webber's cat completely erased the score from his computer two weeks ago (dead serious), who knows if this will ever be produced. — Music Maker 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for minimal content due to the fact it is a (set back) work in progress. No objection to recreation at a later date, when more information is available. However, that source currently making up the article has to be in it, just for the sheer doubletake value. -- saberwyn 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough is known to write a vaguely coherent article - no lyricist (officially), no plot, no dates, and no score... This only warrants a sentence at the end of The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), at least until more concrete details are available. For more comedy, ALW did a video podcast talking (briefly) about his cat deleting the score [1] - Dafyd 12:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and consider moving anecdote to Andrew Lloyd Webber, a location that seems to me more suitable than The Phantom of the Opera (1986 musical), as it pertains to his biography and only obliquely to the former musical. --Nonstopdrivel 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that the name of the show was supposed to be "Phantom in Manhattan" anyhow. This is definitely less than a rumor. Come back when there is actually a show to write about! -- Ssilvers 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per ↑.--Edtropolis 14:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, Crytsal Ball. JJL 16:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, more crystal ballery. RFerreira 06:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David: the Musical

Subject fails notability. Google search for ""david the musical" murner" (the composer's last name) yielded 6 results. — Music Maker 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially a press release for a non-notable event. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:N fail. Doesn't seem to have left Boston. Monkeyblu e 09:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a quote from the evening's program. Fails WP:N and certainly doesn't merit an entire cast listing. --Nonstopdrivel 13:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Edtropolis 13:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flapper!

Fails to assert notability. A google search for "Flapper! Francoeur" (the composer's last name) yielded 122 results. — Music Maker 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability asserted. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear that this musical ever had a professional production. It seems to have been sold to some schools for school productions. -- Ssilvers 12:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. JJL 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oedipus for Kids

Article does not assert notability. A Google search of ""Oedipus for Kids" Saferstein" (the composer's last name) yielded 236 results — Music Maker 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One ir two online reviews and/or pre-publicity articles, but not sufficient to establish notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Much of the information in the article seems to be a joke. -- Ssilvers 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Article itself seems to be a parody. --Nonstopdrivel 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World Socialist Web Site

Disputed prod. Web site fails notability. Only sources cited are itself and Alexa. Realkyhick 07:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge with International Committee of the Fourth International. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant sources. Nick mallory 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep They have a certain oddball notability. The Buffalo News mentions them[2] and the Asian Tribune reprints them some[3][4][5].--T. Anthony 10:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to International Committee of the Fourth International. --Nonstopdrivel 13:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge might work as it's a short article.--T. Anthony 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could go with that. Realkyhick 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Appears to be a conspiracy theory web site.--Edtropolis 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, having been mentioned by both American and Asian newspapers, there is likelihood that sufficient people have heard about it around the world, establishing some notability.--Kylohk 15:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To what extent it's considered conspiracy theory will vary by political orientation. It's a lot more sober than most of the "classical" conspiracy sites. Now also hass a section in French. DGG 02:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly well known website, and just look at how many articles on Wikipedia link to it.[6] Serpent-A 04:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website, at least 1-2 years ago it was one of the foremost leftwing websites worldwide. --Soman 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a venerable Trotskyist website which is well known in leftist circles. Sources will definitely be available from the left-wing press. —Psychonaut 16:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Post some sources and I'll gladly reconsider. I'm starting to be swayed toward notability anyway, even though the site's politics are polar opposite of my own. Realkyhick 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. Being parent of a deceased, attempting to meet Congresspeople, are not remotely plausible assertions of encyclopedic notability. Sadly, this probably happens every day in the US, with comparable experiences to thousands of people in the world. Xoloz 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Hager

Suggest deleting article since completely non-notable person. T@nn 07:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability Elmo 08:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability, bias, lack of sources. Seems soapboxy. Doczilla 09:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, article has been tagged for weeks with no attempt to provide sources or establish notability. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 11:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The loss of a child in Iraq, however tragic it might be, does not notability give. --Nonstopdrivel 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PR campaign brought here. JJL 16:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Burntsauce 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus The article will be Kept by default. A merge can always nbe done, if appropriate, without an AfD. Please consider adding any of the references cited here to the article. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General (Freeware game)

No independent references per WP:V; only claim to notability is that 'it is popular in Russia'. Prod was removed last August, reasoning on Talk:General (Freeware game) appears to boil down to 'because I like it.' Marasmusine 07:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine 07:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, it states 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', the russian website given as the external link hasnt been updated since March 2003, and is clearly a promotional site for the game. Willow177 08:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge somewhere My Russian is crap but I was able to find a few newspaper articles about one of the creators Dmitri Gusarov (who is now running his own software company, I guess) in which the game is discussed [7][8] The parent company Newgame Software themselves seem to be notable as well, as well; "General" is mentioned as being their first product. [9] If I have time to start an article about them, merging and redirecting to there might be a better solution too ... cab 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. cab 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a quick look through Babel Fish [[10]] and I think you're right in that there's enough material there for an article on Gusarov; and such an article would be a good location for information on General until more specific references turn up. Thanks, Marasmusine 13:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that I've heard of the game and even played it once or twice probably affects my perspective on its obscurity, but I think it has enough notability to squeak through. Of course, I thought Dice Wars was notable too. --Groggy Dice T | C 20:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Sunshine Man 15:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Andre (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon Pills

I tagged this for speedy deletion as a short article with no context. User:Hesperian removed the tag and added a New York Times reference,[11] however I would argue that (a) the book is still apparently a work in progress, and I cannot find sufficient publication information to suggest that this is not still a case of crystal ball-style prediction, and (b) the NYT article is about a general phenomenon (GeoTagging), and the book has only a single trivial reference, thus not being a sufficient indicator of notability. Confusing Manifestation 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no context, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Realkyhick 07:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, briefest of brief articles, not even an ISBN, non-notable book at this stage. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Absolutely no context. Elmo 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Those who think this article has no context should look "context" up in a dictionary, and then read the speedy deletion criteria again. Clearly it has context. Having said that, I say delete as non-notable, since there is evidently no prospect of writing an article about this book based on reliable third-party sources. Hesperian 11:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable drug. Appears to be an indiscriminate info.--Edtropolis 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the above comment by someone who evidently didn't actually read the article. Hesperian 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Agree that is non-notable and I agree with User:Hesperian that future prospects are slim. JodyB_talk 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless the author provides a context, if add one, may my vote would have changed--JForget 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No notability at all. Perhaps the author can find some references and information to prove it's notable it could be kept, but I don't thnk that would be an easy task... *Cremepuff 222* 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above. Not notable. A1octopus 22:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#G11 and likely WP:CSD#G12. MaxSem 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Foundation International

Not sure what to make of this page, but it doesn't sound deserving of its own article. Nyttend 04:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a hoax and seems pointless. oysterguitarist~Talk 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a soapbox. Alternatively, reduce to stub, since there are GHits about members being arrested. The "proof" of images of Jesus being visible on the Moon, Mars and the Black Stone of Mecca is mighty convincing though. Just one question: did they use a digital camera or a regular one to take His picture for comparison? Clarityfiend 05:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a place for personal essays. Ironically, this article might also be a WP:COPYVIO. Pure POV tripe. --Nonstopdrivel 05:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see anything here that even makes it salvagable as an article. At best this is non-notable POV. 76.174.235.161 06:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Gosh, where to begin? Blatantly promotes a POV, likely copyvio, essay, probable hoax, can't believe it didn't get speedied. Realkyhick 07:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, essay, possible hoax and the article has never seen NPOV. Elmo 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely unencyclopaedic. Hilarious 'evidence' of faces appearing on the Moon, Sun, etc... An interesting sociocultural phenomenon, but needs a non-POV editor to write it, not this article. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Smells like a WP:HOAX, if not that, then completely unencyclopedic. east.718 10:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it Reads like propaganda. -N 10:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Shadow1 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Phish tribute albums

Non-notable albums by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page is a list of tribute albums for one of the largest touring acts of the last two decades. That satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jimmy Buffett, The Wailers, and Dave Matthews are NOT non-notables. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are correct, but is it possible there is a better way to convey this information. While I haven't quite made my mind up yet on this, I do feel that it borders on absurd to have a list of Phish tribute albums. Are we next going to make a list of tribute albums to Phish tribute bands? At some point information is better to implement by attaching it to pre-existing articles rather than by creating new ones, I think that this may be one of those cases. Trusilver 06:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have to say that the line would be drawn before the list of tribute bands of tribute bands (this isn't a tribute band, it's a tribute album -- a little different). This is important information, relevant to a GA. It doesn't belong in, say, Phish discography, because it isn't Phish discography. Furthermore, as it was just too much information, the main Phish article doesn't even have a complete discography on it. This list is the most logical place for this information. (This response should also be considered for the other five articles so nominated.) — Music Maker 08:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Okay, I find that line of reasoning acceptable. I just worry that we are lowering the bar every day on what is deemed notable. Trusilver 19:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Phish. If the fact that Phish tributes have been made is itself notable, there's no reason why this can't be mentioned in the Phish main article. The vast majority of content in this article is self-redundant anyway. --Nonstopdrivel 05:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Neither the list or the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. Realkyhick 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The albums are so different from one another in conctent and genre, plus there are more than just a couple. Six widely distributred albums is enough to warrant individual pages. Also, I noticed the All Music Guide has entries and reviews for each, not just listings, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per ↑. Phish is not the only band inspired to make albums. They were also seen on the SNL segment Jarrett's Room.--Edtropolis 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Phish per Nonstopdrivel. Carlossuarez46 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep, although Phish looks quite notable even If I haven't heard of them. --JForget 00:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no question about the notability of Phish, the question is about the notability of the tribute albums. Corvus cornix 17:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sharin' in the Groove

Tribute album by non-notable musicians Corvus cornix 04:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jimmy Buffett, The Wailers, and Dave Matthews are NOT non-notables. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Antelope. — Music Maker 04:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. None of the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. Realkyhick 07:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. east.718 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are major recording artists on this album!. Steph11 12:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tribute album comprised of notable bands. It has even been on the Billboard magazine Top Independent albums chart in 2001 at number 25. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the success has a tribute album, definitely notable, I don't see why the article should be deleted.--JForget 00:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Almost all the bands listed are wiki-notable and many quite notable in fact! Jonathan Williams 02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Phishin'

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. Album sold so well that a sequel was made the same year. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. None of the individual albums are notable enough to stand alone. (This is a recording.) Realkyhick 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album was even reprinted in a double disc sequel combined with Still Phishin'. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as per ↑.--Edtropolis 14:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Phishin'

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. This is a sequel to the first successful Phish bluegrass tribute. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album was even reprinted in a double disc sequel combined with Gone Phishin'. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RunLikeAnAntelope--JForget 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JamGrass: A Phish Tribute

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album is internationally available all over the world and Phish is one of the most successful American rock bands. This album also recieved some radioplay upon its release. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. What I said above. Realkyhick 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Album available worldwide. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Phish is a notable band. They were inspired by millions.--Edtropolis 14:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Non admin closure. The Sunshine Man 15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The String Quartet Tribute to Phish

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vitamin Records released over 100 string quartet tribute albums dedicated to a number of popular rock bands; these albums are available worldwide. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable (they certainly are in some circles -- very small circles, but circles nonetheless...), the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 05:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Ditto, again. Realkyhick 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree about Vitam Records contituting notability. Label distributed major tributes online and in outlets. Plus, All Music Guide has entry and review, not just a listing, which to me constitutes notability in the music world. Steph11 12:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as I said above.--Edtropolis 14:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The Sunshine Man 15:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

High Neighbors: Dub Tribute to Phish

Tribute album by non-notable musicians. Corvus cornix 04:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another major label release from Vitamin Records. RunLikeAnAntelope 04:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the individual artists could be considered notable, the music that they're playing satisfies notability. — Music Maker 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into a tribute albums section under Phish. --Nonstopdrivel 06:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Phish. Do I even have to say why anymore? Realkyhick 07:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See above. Steph11 12:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Ocatecir ^T 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks Mall, Florida

Non-notable shopping mall, no claims of notability, no sources. My speedy deletion tag was reverted. Corvus cornix 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some sources. --Eastmain 04:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to assert notability. Theft at malls is hardly a rare or notable occurrence. --Nonstopdrivel 06:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable enough on its own, theft doesn't enter into the equation. Realkyhick 07:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only evidence of notability is a single report of a theft. Does every victim of a robbery get an article on Wikipedia? Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has over 900,000 square feet of gross leasable area, which makes it a "super-regional mall" per the ICSC [12]. See also the views of several editors on notability of malls at the essay WP:MALL. Edison 16:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable enough at nearly 900,000 square feet, also has several reliable sources. ~~I'll be bold and move this to The Oaks Mall (Florida), though.~~ Move made to The Oaks Mall (Florida). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eisdon and notability according to WP:MALL which this seems to pass. Burntsauce 23:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep large enough to qualify. All mall articles now will be smaller than they used to be, since the spam lists of stores are finally being removed.

but I do not see why speedy tags are being placed on articles that make some assertion of notability. Is it because of habit, or of a hope that sometimes one will slip through? DGG 02:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assumption of good faith. The speedy tag was put on the article under the auspices of A7: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. There are still no claims of notability in this article. Not all shopping malls are notable, and if there is nothing in the article other than a list of stores, and doesn't say anything in the article about how this is different from any other mall, then, to my thinking, it merits an A7. Corvus cornix 16:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of A7 does it fit: " real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content" ?DGG 01:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company, obviously Corvus cornix 17:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Size and sources demonstrate notability. Alansohn 17:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MALL as a super-regional mall with multiple sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Demartini

Is this an ad? It must be, since this man is not prominent or famous or whatever enough to deserve an article. A search results in few sources that are not somehow promotional. Pablosecca 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article doesn't pass WP:POV, much less WP:NOTABLE. It's poorly written and has a distinctly unencyclopedic, whimsical tone. Paul Bragg is himself well known in the health-food industry, but his notability isn't transferable to Mr. Demartini. The latter, I'm guessing, gave a testimonial in one of Mr. Bragg's videos. --Nonstopdrivel 03:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable, borderline spam. Realkyhick 07:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not even asserted, never mind proven. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very little notability. But why is this AFD categorised as "places and transportation"? Peterkingiron 13:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 22:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 04:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Youth

Zero Google hits for this supposed legend. Corvus cornix 03:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's either a hoax, or the most non-notable legend ever. --Haemo 03:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Its a hoax. ~ Wiki hermit 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Being a hoax isn't a reason for speedy deletion, but being patent nonsense is. Resolute 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hoax. Besides being patent nonsense, poorly written, and unsourced, it reminds me vaguely of a Pecos Bill knock-off. It made me laugh, however, so that's something. --Nonstopdrivel 03:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sr 13 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ridge

not noteworthy enough for an encyclopediac entry to be possible Kripto 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her best claim to fame is being married to a former athelete. Fails WP:BIO. Resolute 03:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep Several sources to back that she's an interior designer of note in New Zealand. Article may need padding.--Ispy1981 04:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. At the very least has demonstratable name recognition. The fashion and interior design stuff gets a fair few articles in gnews archives[13]--Limegreen 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would she be notable without the celebrity status of her husband? And who outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her? All the sources are local to NZ. I also object to the opening statement: "the ex-cricketer" -- as if her husband is so well-known that anyone would have heard of him outside of cricket fandom. --Nonstopdrivel 06:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call dude. Is there any proof this whole like 'New Zealand' thing exists anyway? I trawled Gawker for like fifteen seconds during the second ad break in the Simpsons and there's zip. Maybe it's somewhere real out there like Brooklyn? Nick mallory 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the sarcasm is called for, but point taken. If we have room for American socialites like Paris Hilton on the wikisphere, I guess there's no reason why we don't have room for New Zealander socialites. --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the American Wikipedia. If she's notable in New Zealand, she's notable enough for Wikipedia even if not a single individual outside that country has heard of her. --Charlene 08:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think that was the point I was making Charlene...

Keep: Are you kidding? I would be hardpressed to find anything in WP:V stating that reliable sources don't count if they're in New Zealand. RGTraynor 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article was a long-standing request at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand. Sally Ridge has been known as a television personality in New Zealand for a considerable length of time, separate from anything to do with either her ex-husband or current husband. I realise that "other shit exists" isn't a particularly good argument on AfD, but as one of the regular designers on such series as the NZ edition of Changing Rooms and Home Front. and in the media in general after that, Ridge would rate level with the likes of the UK's Lawrence Llewelyn-Bowen. And I don't see anyone rushing to delete his article due to a lack of notability. It needs expansion, not deletion. I've given the article a thorough copyedit which is a start. Oh - and no, Nick, as everyone knows, Brooklyn is in NZ, not the other way round :) Grutness...wha? 06:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep. Short article, but notability guidelines seem to be met pretty handily. Longstanding request for this article by an established project helps, too. Realkyhick 08:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least one source demonstrating notability, others should be added and could certainly be found. Nonstopdrivel's response above unhelpful. Notability does not have to be international. And yes, she would be notable without the status of her husband. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual is certainly notable in her own country, and easily passes WP:BIO. --Charlene 08:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
some thoughts - 1. Ms Ridge has been in the media. Checking the googlenews archive posted above, for either trying to demolish a house and/or for being married, and/or having children and/or having a job; it seems that she has high name recognition. But that is not the same thing as notability. It seems her best description is 'socialite'. 2. There is no way to know if she is a high-flyer among New Zealand interioir designers, but I would assume that if such things are unascertainable. awarding her the benefit of the doubt would be a mistake. 3. She was on TV, and this is not the same thing as notable either; none of the shows she is associated with (and I think the TV shows are the best measure of her notability) have wikipages of their own. Homefront goes to a page about a civil populace during a time of war and the 'changing rooms' page is about the British show with her name mentioned in passing, and Celebrity Treasure Island is a redlink.. 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed two of those links to point to the corrct pages... as to Changing Rooms, it makes sense to list the NZ show on the same page as the UK one gioven that there was some interchange betwen the two series. If there hadn't been, it would surely have merited its own page. Grutness...wha? 14:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is certainly notable within New Zealand in the fields of interior design and from her TV work, never mind the notability from the issues raised from the demolition of the house. All of these add up to pass the notability requirements.--Mendors 10:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still object to the idea that she derives notability from a controversy surrounding a house demolition. In my hometown there are always controversies surrounding proposed demolitions of historic buildings. They don't create notability outside the local area, much less nationally or internationally. They certainly don't merit Wikipedia articles. What is so special about this demolition controversy? --Nonstopdrivel 13:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial response to comment - This one did make headlines nationally (I live at the other end of NZ to Auckland). I suspect the reason it made such a big splash is that the couple planning to do the demolition were both already of sufficient fame to merit it. It's a cause and effect thing - you say notability comes through news of the demolition, but the demolition wouldn't have been big news if the notability wasn't already there. Which brings us back here. Grutness...wha? 14:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Ridge has over 200 unique hits on the New Zealand Google, which is not at all bad. Those hits range from articles in the NZ Herald to an IMDB listing to fashion magazines to TV station websites to Yahoo! "babe" shot groups. That you might not like or agree with her notability is possible, but that she passes WP:V is incontrovertible. RGTraynor 14:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Charlene.fic Taprobanus 17:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. JJL 18:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:V quite easily. Article may be a stub, but it just needs improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty notable in NZ. For those who say "nobody outside of New Zealand has ever heard of her," may I direct you to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. A person doesn't need to be known globally to be notable, and using this argument in AfD discussions lends itself to biasing Wikipedia in favor of certain countries/ethnic groups/etc. -- a very unencyclopedic bias. --Ace of Swords 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO, and notable person in New Zealand--JForget 00:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News Archives comes up with 99 hits relating to her relating to her design work as well as the house issue. [14]Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject passes WP:BIO through multiple claims to notability backed by reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 04:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's Wrong with Me

This is definitely not a notable song by any means. Heck, the artist and songwriter are both redlinks, and the page is completely orphaned. I've followed the Billboard charts for years now, and I know for a fact that it was never charted. Therefore, I see no reason to keep this page (although actually, Todd Fritsch is a damn fine artist). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Apparently this article was created by a single-purpose account, User:Aimforcentermass, whose only other contributions have been a page for Todd himself, and a page for the songwriter of the song. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What's wrong with this article is it's not demonstrably notable. That said, an article on Todd Fritsch may be reasonable. FrozenPurpleCube 03:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on that actually -- Todd himself is notable, despite not charting here in the US. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable it has two red links. oysterguitarist~Talk 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article makes no attempt at asserting notability. Resolute 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to asserting notability. Realkyhick 08:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable song. A one-line article is not enough for notability.--Edtropolis 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The musical artist is non-notable as the song itself.--Edtropolis 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because there's no article on Todd Fritsch doesn't mean he's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bucketsofg 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Eric444 04:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was all the pimps in the crib, delete it like it's NOT. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mack G

Hoax. 14 year old rapper who's one of the richest in the world, extremely famous, but doesn't seem to exist. I love the reference notes that do not link to any references. Corvus cornix 02:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Hilariously, the two mystery "citations" point to an article on Ice Cube, and to a list of 100 influential rappers, of which this individual is not listed. Resolute 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute. Anthony Rupert 03:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute oysterguitarist~Talk 03:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not one ghit for "Mack G" refers to a rapper, though there are lists of rappers in which the words "Craig Mack, G-Dep" occur. This is one of the better-written hoaxes I've seen, certainly worth a laugh, but no less worthy of deletion. --Nonstopdrivel 04:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Resolute. Maxa megalon 2000 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the article is copied from Ice Cube's. Sci girl 05:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Yo, bro, it's bull----. Realkyhick 08:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. 10/10 for balls, 0/10 for content. Even the external link to his own website leads to an empty page! Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy it. It's a hoax. east.718 10:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not MySpace. Fails WP:MUSIC.--Edtropolis 14:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the article. Take some of the more intriguing incidents and put them in the main article, but this is mostly a fancruft list of mundane injuries (given that the subject is Jackie Chan). —Kurykh 22:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan Injury List

Very big example of fancruft. We don't need to learn about how Jackie Chan got shards of glass up his buttocks while he was filming. Either deletion or merging into the individual movie articles would be the best choice. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. You've got to be kidding me. There may be a place for this, but Wikipedia ain't it. Take the fancruft elsewhere, pronto. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge to Jackie Chan only because I know Jackie Chan himself loves to talk about all of the times he has been injured while filming his movies. --Hnsampat 03:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; *if* this is notable information, then it should not be merged directly into Jackie Chan. The parent article is already long, and adding a long list to the end would be counter-productive. Separating long lists of otherwise notable information is one way of avoiding bloat in parent articles. Fourohfour 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Swift Delete as patent fancruft. The place this belongs is precisely where it's located: on the Official Jacky Chan Injury Map. --Nonstopdrivel 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Listcruft. What next, list of body blemishes on Jackie Chan? Puh-leeze. Realkyhick 08:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackie Chan, it's notable that he nackers himself so regularly on films and it's something he brings up alot. Too crufty and not notable enough for an article of it's own, but I would recommend we stop short of deleting the information outright. Elmo 08:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia that does not need to crowd the Jackie Chan article. Doczilla 09:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main articles for movies - but only in the text where appropriate, not as trivia. east.718 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Jackie Chan is famous for his injuries during filming. These are non trivial injuries too. The facts go beyond the interest of fans, so deserve to be kept somewhere. Sure the article needs some more references. GB 11:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up Jackie Chan's injuries have been widely documented and even referenced in popular culture, (such as in Celebrity Deathmatch before his fight with Claude Van Damm). This makes it a notable subject outside of Jackie Chan fans. Chan has also mentioned his injuries when he was in Stefan Raab's TV Total comedy show. So, I'll just go and clean up the list. Also, had this been merged into the Jackie Chan article, it would make it disproportionate (which was why I deleted the whole section on its article).--Kylohk 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean upThe injury list have been seperated from the main article, and this subsection should be kept, i will provide references at a later time, but anyone who wants to do so in the mean time please go ahead. As far as i know all the injury listed have been documented one way or the other, and since jackie chan is listed in the guiness book of record as the actor with the most stunts and injuries, this section should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaliusButkus (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete as horrible fancruft. Eusebeus 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. His injuries in a stunt is very notable. He was inspired by fans and MTV.--Edtropolis 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a long list of trivia, which is to be avoided within articles, so why have an article that is nothing but trivia? This fancruft can safely go back into the Jackie Chan article in a much abbreviated form (maybe a mention of the Guinness Record), but we don't need to list out every single last bruise. - BierHerr 15:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is only a list for notable and documented or witnessed injuries, so i say keep, since this is unprecendented in the acting stage, and it's been removed from the main article and subcategoried, it should be kept, else i will reinstate it within the main article, can't see where all the fuss come from. fancraft is an invalid reason for deletion, for those calling this fancraft please do some research on the topic before saying it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.199.10 (talk • contribs)
- Comment Note that the inclusion of the list in the main article itself would cause disproportionation. In fact, his injuries have already been mentioned in the stunts section.--Kylohk 15:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Worth retaining as facts about a notable actor's life/career, but separated from main article to keep main article a reasonable length. I'd recommend also including further info about the circumstances of the injuries, and to include this info in articles about individual films. --Ace of Swords 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's one of the most famous people in the world , so it is notable. IP198 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very good reason. Ozzie Osbourne is famous, but we don't keep track of all the times he was stoned or stuff. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First you said it is all fancraft now you compare it to ozzie osbourne being stoned, pick on your side of the argument and stick with it, so you probably agree this list of injuries are not fan made fiction now, but your comparing injuries with drug abuse is pointless, i say strong keep cause to seperate the injury list from the main article.
Strong delete. Jackie Chan is very notable; every little injury he sustains, however, is not. Wikipedia is not a celebrity medical file. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reliable sources do exist about his injuries, in fact, they have been added to the article. For instance, his Guinness Book of World Records does mention that he can never get insurance. His injuries definitely must be noted for the award to mention it.--Kylohk 21:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may be so bold as to sum up the delete opinions, I think most would agree that a paragraph in the Jackie Chan article mentioning the fact that he has many injuries and that he holds a World Record will suffice. There is no encyclopedic reason to LIST every injury. So my opinion is to sweep this back into the main article (as a summarizing paragraph, not an all-inclusive list so as to avoid making that article too long, as is your concern) and delete the unnecessary "List Of" article. - BierHerr 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jackie Chan as an injured actor is notable, and does deserve its own article, even if every little detail is not notable for its own separate article. There is no reason to keep wikipedia small, we can go into detail. If each item on the list has been reported in multiple media, then there is justification for including it in a list. GB 03:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jackie Chan or the movies... whatever is the best option, not sure if a separate list of his injuries is really necessary. The references can be transferred of course to the appropriates--JForget 00:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and cleanup As you see improvements and referencing have already started with this article, so i say give it time to improve, and keep it seperate from the main Jackie Chan page, just like his filmography.
Delete as much as I like watching his movies, this is excessive trivia and since the main article already covers injuries proportionately, this article must go. Not everything that is sourced and verifiable is encyclopedic. Resurgent insurgent 06:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But only if we can confirm, per User:DaliusButkus, that Jackie Chan is listed in the Guiness Book of Records as the actor with the most stunts and injuries. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletions. -- Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment [15] This link, from Jackie Chan Kids (the kids section of the official Jackie Chan website) talks about the Guinness World Records (Use the text search, search for "Guinness"). Note that the official Guinness World Records website does not list all records, if you want further verification, you can always send a text message request to their specified number.--Kylohk 08:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA.--Jerry 20:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:TRIVIA does not recommend deleting at all, but recommends that the article should be reorganised into a text format rather than a list of facts. GB 06:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of injuries suffered by Jackie Chan or Merge to Jackie Chan, as Jackie Chan is notable for his injuries, amongst other things. 70.55.86.40 04:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. I agree with HongQiGong's comments. Magioladitis 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Guy gets hurts a lot, he deserves a whole article devoted to his injuries. 71.126.192.8 15:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of it to Jackie Chan. Does not deserve a separate article, but Jackie's injuries are a significant part of his biography. -- MightyWarrior 09:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Merging the article is not a good idea, since the biography would become disproportionate.--Kylohk 11:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its a good article. Mr Tan 12:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ali S. Asani

No evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to establish notability; the only reference is the subject's own website. --Nonstopdrivel 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject more than establishes WP:NOTE for academics. Seen as a prominent person in his field. Has written several books in his field. The very first ghit is his page at Harvard University. Article needs work.--Ispy1981 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest keep. Notable, but barely. Published works and Harvard status helps. Realkyhick 08:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The award cannot be verified from the Harvard Foundation's own website (because of the poor quality of the site, rather than because the claim is bogus, I would guess!) No other external sources. Has written some articles found on Google Scholar, but then so have I and I don't have a Wikipedia article! Fails WP:PROF unless some better external sources can be found. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. 50+ hits on Google Scholar. 700+ hits on Google Web including links from: Harvard University, Institute of Ismaili Studies, UK, JSTOR, Oxford Journals. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve. Scholars do have notability. They just don't want their birth dates being published.--Edtropolis 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all scholars are notable. They must meet WP:PROF which I don't think this does. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — WP:PROF suggests notability is established by the receipt of a notable award which seems to be the case with the Harvard Award. That, coupled with his publishing should be enough. JodyB_talk 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Aminz 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the award is mentioned on speaker bio's hosted by other academic institutions, which adds reliability and notability to the award. If someone can demonstrate that this award isnt notable I will take another look at the notability of this prof, but at this stage the award and publications push the subject over the line. John Vandenberg 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment to RandomHumanoid below. I take no position on the notability of the award, but the fact that it's given by an organization he's directly involved with suggests that it isn't usable as a reliable secondary source. —David Eppstein 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- His list of publications and Harvard Foundation award establishes notability as a scholar and activist. His position as "Professor of the Practice of Indo-Muslim Languages and Culture" at Harvard does something even harder: establishes notability as a teacher. Harvard has a number of different names for faculty who are hired as much or more for their teaching or their professional experience as for their academic scholarship: Proctor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Preceptor, Senior Preceptor, but the highest is almost certainly "Professor of the Practice of X." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's notable, though I am not sure whether professor the practice of elsewhere has they same connotations at Harvard. At some places it's fairly liberally awarded, as the teaching-only line is not tenure-track & tends to lack some of the perks. Not all the GS links are independent. And two of the works are elementary textbooks,but that's fine for his position.DGG 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring specifically to the usage at Harvard--though even there it varies slightly from department to department. The standard of a Prof. of the Practice in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard is full-time, not adjunct unless someone has other evidence (Harvard faculty handbook, pg. 39). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is adjunct faculty, which is non-tenure track and frequently mentioned by people to inflate someone's importance or credentials. (For example, almost every physician associated with HMS (Harvard Med School) is a "clinical" professor of something, but that is a world apart from being an "actual" Harvard professor.) But I'm concerned with the over-emphasis in many of these discussions on a Harvard affiliation, as if that in and of itself establishes notability. I am not personally familiar with the award he received, but it is conceivable this is not as large a feather in his cap as some would have us imagine.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems he serves on the advisory board for the Harvard Foundation, so I don't think the award can be used as a reliable secondary source, regardless of its inherent notability. —David Eppstein 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was wrong about this being an adjunct position. Funny thing -- I wrote my comment this morning while having breakfast with a (senior) faculty member who told me the position was equivalent to adjunct when I asked him what it was. (Yes, we have breakfast with our laptops out. He was reading the Times, I wikipedia.) Turns out I was misinformed. From the Crimson ...the post of professor in practice, a tenured position created during the 1992-1993 school year that allows faculty to teach and maintain private practice. So, I do hereby stand humbly corrected. (Nonetheless, my opinion regarding notability remains unchanged.) --RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tahir Abbas

This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr 13 06:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Cahen

No evidence of any notability Sefringle^Talk 01:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletions. -- Sefringle^Talk 01:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - if one scholarly article is all he's published, and he has done nothing else worth mentioning, then he fails WP:BIO. --Evb-wiki 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the added text and sources. --Evb-wiki 19:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence pertaining to significance of published work. --Nonstopdrivel 04:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be evidence to suggest that, not only has he written more than one article, but was a notable in his field. But it's in French.--Ispy1981 04:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It took about two minutes of web searching to discover that Cahen is considered one of the most distinguished professors in Middle Eastern history. Peer-reviewed reviews of the book in his honor found on the web say that his career was distinguished. Probing a bit farther we find, this statement in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 1996, as the first line of the Festschrift review "This book honors the best historian of the Middle East in the twentieth century." This review provides a detailed biographical sketch of the professor, showing how his participation in the French Communist party may or may not have affected his scholarship. Anyone who can downplay his importance with "I am known all over the world, to one person in each country" is surely an important figure. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Claude Cahen is a very well-known scholar of Islam. His work on Dhimmi in Encyclopedia of Islam is regarded as authorative. --Aminz 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per references found by Myke Cuthbert. —David Eppstein 20:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable historian according to the standards, no reason to delete the article.--JForget 00:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Perhaps the nom would like to inform us of the search he made by which he concluded the person was not notable? DGG 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To his defense, the article at the time of the nomination did not assert notability. It does now, and clearly pass the professor test. (Keep) -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable historian Misheu 08:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aminz. --- A. L. M. 09:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and greatly expand. Cahen is more notable among historians than Joshua Prawer, on whom I wrote an article I'm trying to get to GA status. The sources I read indicated that Cahen revolutionaized Crusade studies, and was one the most important medievalists of our time. I suggest that this nomination be withdrawn. nadav (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates

This list I would say is a trivia list composed by original research and unverified claims. Even though it has been nominated several times before for deletion, it has miraculously survived via "no consensus". But I believe this "article" isn't encyclopedic and should be deleted _→AzaToth 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar plots _→AzaToth 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't encyclopedic. --Plasma Twa 2 02:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how it isn't encyclopaedic. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, just how similar are we talking anyway? This is too indiscriminate and nigh impossible to verify. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too discriminate. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 02:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, surely you mean indiscriminate. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The last two times this was nominated I thought it was better than most indiscriminate lists, and many of the people who supported keeping it said citations comparing the films were necessary and must be added to avoid the list descending into WP:OR, or relying on the personal opinions of passing editors (ie, an editor thinks "Movie A was a bit similar to Movie B, I'll add it to the list"). Not only have sources failed to appear, but I've been watching this article closely for a while, and regular editors have actually been removing requests for sources. That's right, far from addressing the concerns raised in previous AFDs, they have been making this list worse. This aggressive edit summary is just one of many attempts to prevent sources being added, this editor claims that reading the individual articles is enough and citations are not needed, so interpretation and opinion is needed on the part of the reader. This list will never be anything but WP:OR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Masaruemoto 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this was a needlessly aggressive edit summary. But the lousy behavior of one editor isn't necessarily a good reason to delete. A lot of work has been done to provide over 30 specific references and several general references to the phenomenon of films with similar themes and release dates. --JayHenry 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not one editor at all, like I said, one of many. There are other instances of different editors removing requests for sources, I just provided that one as an example. Even if this entire list was sourced, it would still be largely relying on the personal opinions of some arbritrarily chosen film reviewers. Maybe rename to List of films that a film reviewer, sometime, somewhere has compared to another film that happened to have a "similar" release date, because that's all this will ever be. Masaruemoto 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where the actual name for the concept was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. --Evb-wiki 03:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - To be quite honest, I don't see how this is even remotely encyclopedic in nature. If someone could explain how it is, I'd be glad to change my opinion. --Haemo 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where such an explanation was given. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see an actual argument above that this is unencyclopedic. I will observe, the following:
- Per WP:FIVE: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." This is perhaps not information you would see in a general encyclopedia, but it's certainly something you'd see in a specialized encyclopedia of the film industry say; or an almanac of the film industry. The argument "unencyclopedic" is generally a poor argument when applied to lists, because lists are generally almanac-style information which is explicitly allowed.
- Per WP:LIST: "The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists." This is a chronological list, grouped by theme and also annotated. It is valid per WP:LIST.
- The article is well referenced. It has nearly 40 sources, including many that specifically address "films with similar themes and release dates," I think that contradicts any assertion that this is WP:OR.
- As for indiscriminate, I'd point out that Hollywood only produces so many movies in a year, and not that many of them fall under this phenomenon -- in other words, the content of the list is not infinitely large. Quite the contrary.
- It has not been raised yet, but has been in previous AFDs, the issue of WP:NPOV. NPOV simply states that information be presented neutrally. Thus, the inclusions in the list are not the opinion of any editor, but an assertion from a source: i.e. Happy Feet and Surf's Up are both about computer-animated penguins on Antarctic adventures released within one year of each other. Perhaps you somehow disagree that these films are similar, but the observation that they are similar is sourced to USA Today. Also, the notion that someone would have a "pro films about penguins being similar bias" is somewhat ridiculous.
- In previous AFDs a lot of the arguments have been some version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. That's fine. I don't like all the manga articles. But it's not a reason to delete. Not by a long shot. --JayHenry 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a comment about you number of movies made by Hollywood point, the MPAA rated 404 movies in 2006, and average of 7.7 movies per week. So movie's coming out that are similar is gonna happen a lot. TJ Spyke 04:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The intro, while plausible, is unverified and fails WP:OR; the subject itself is inherently, irretrievably incomplete and unencyclopedic. Furthermore, there is a direct correlation between the number of movies in a section and the decade it describes, which leads me to believe this article is the product of a group of young people. It's an example of the same historical shortsightedness that causes the Top Ten Greatest American polls to feature Oprah at number 8. Somehow the majority of Greatest Americans have lived in the last 20 years. I think the same shortsightedness applies to this article. --Nonstopdrivel 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006, where sources documenting the phenomenon, under an actual name, were cited. Yet more sources documenting the phenomenon were cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates (second nomination). Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Potentially this could be a valid article, but the editors seem to be stretching to put films on this list. In what way do Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind have similar themes? And even less so, what do Sweet Sweetback's Baadasss Song and Shaft have in common? That they are about black people? --Metropolitan90 05:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The criteria for inclusion as to "similar themes" are too vaguely defined, making this indiscriminate information. --Metropolitan90 09:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this might be important reference to movie critics, although I think concensus must be reached on its talkpage for deciding wich movies are similar --Andersmusician $ 06:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No external criterion for what should be included here, hence this is original research. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- An appropriate external criterion was given in the very first AFD discussion, from September 2006. Please read it. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then if the criterion (mention by external film reviewer) exists, it should be applied. In other words a reference for each item on the list to a review mentioning the similarity. A lot of work I know, but that's what the use of this criterion involves. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vague, subjective, trivial, unmaintainable OR list. Doczilla 09:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Back when this was first nominated for deletion, as List of films with similar plots (AfD discussion) in September 2006, I gave a whole list of links to places where people talked about "copycat" movies, such as this magazine article, and it was suggested by MacGyverMagic that the article be renamed to copycat movie. That never happened. I suggest that all of the above editors look at the prior AFD discussions. It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago. Uncle G 10:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if this is true, who cares? --Nonstopdrivel 13:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can follow the links that I gave to see that it is true. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" is not an indiscriminate criterion for deletion. It is usually abused as the argument given by editors who cannot find a real rationale based upon what our policies actually say. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This list remains a directory of loosely associated items with a vague and arbitrary standard of inclusion. There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar theme." There is no objective definition of what constitutes a "similar release date." Individual editors must decide what constitutes a similar theme or release date, which is impermissible original research. I acknowledge that since the last AFD a number of editors have tried to get the list into better shape but it still fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Otto4711 12:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Having individual editors make the decisions is unnecessary if they use the sources that were pointed out to you in the second AFD discussion, some of which can currently be even found hyperlinked-to by the article. Please actually look at the sources outside of Wikipedia that have done the analysis that have been pointed out again and again over 4 AFD discussions. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have looked at a number of the linked sources and I explained the last time around why I find relying on reviews and other opinion pieces for sourcing questionable. It entails giving undue weight to reviews that support the notion of similarity while discounting those that don't. And I can type in highly dramatic italics too, so I'm not really that impressed by it. Otto4711 19:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you seriously think that this article is biased, find some sources that say why some specific pairs of movies are not similar and add them to the article for balance. Remember, a NPOV is not reached by deleting information, but by adding the competing opinions. --Itub 08:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll pass, thanks, List of films that some people say are similar in theme and release date but other people say aren't would be an even dumber list than this. Otto4711 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JayHenry, plus some comments. Saying that "there is no objective definition of what constitutes a similar release date" is not a convincing complaint, as it can be trivially made objective by agreeing on a timespan and adding it to the top or the article, or even to the title. For example, how about "List of films with similar themes released within one year of one another"? (Which from observation of the list, seems to be the de facto criterion in most cases). The question of similar themes is arguably more subjective, but I haven't seen any controversial claims in the list, and specific cases could be discussed in the talk page. In most cases the similarity is blatantly obvious. Who would dispute the fact that Tombstone (1993) and Wyatt Earp (1994) are both films about Wyatt Earp? Or that Deep Impact and Armageddon, released in 1998, were films that featured a celestial body hitting the Earth? The ultimate sources are the films themselves. If seeing a film and concluding that it is about a celestial body hitting Earth is original research, then so is concluding that a film is about Joan of Arc, and there are many instances of this in the featured list about Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. --Itub 13:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The ultimate sources are the people who, outside of Wikipedia, have observed the phenomenon of copycat movies, analysed it, and documented it, not Wikipedia editors watching films, drawing their own conclusions, and writing them up directly in Wikipedia. It is this very misunderstanding of the Wikipedia:No original research policy on the parts of editors adding text to this article that is partly the problem here. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOR does not prohibit the use of primary sources. It just says they should be used with care. Almost all of the articles we have about films, music, literature, etc. include some sort of plot synopsis, and in the vast majority of cases this is based directly on the work and not on secondary literature. Casablanca is a Featured Article with absolutely no references for the plot synopsis and lead. Is it original research to say that "Casablanca is an Oscar-winning 1942 romance film set during World War II in the Vichy-controlled Moroccan city of Casablanca"? (That's the very first sentence in the article and it's unsourced.) If we can have a synopsis on a movie based on the movie itself, we can certainly note that two movies have similar themes while referring to the movies themselves. --Itub 08:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were a source for each item, which would be a minimum requirement for making this list even remotely useful, the source would have to be the same for each item because that's the only way the same criteria would be applied. Since a wild variation of criteria is applied for the items, it is not really an accurate list at all. It's utterly useless and unmaintainable. --Spike Wilbury 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete list of <randomly selected entertainment medium> with <two randomly selected properties in common>. Definition of "similar" is elastic, and there is no encyclopaedic topic films with similar themes and release dates to support this list. Guy (Help!) 15:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's an encyclopaedic topic of copycat movies. Renaming and refactoring this article was suggested in the very first AFD discussion. As I've already said, It's time to actually do what was suggested 9 months ago. Uncle G 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make it so. That is quite different from the subject as now, so I don't see it has much bearing, but if enough (FSVO) of the current entries fit the bill in your view then a move, purge, slice, dice, refactor and refinish is fine too. Guy (Help!) 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all cited content to a prose article properly titled to cover this pattern, especially with more attributable sources that study trends in the film industry. As a list, this article has been abused by synthesized additions. When a prose article is created, then the cited examples should be whittled down to the most significant to reduce the nature of an indiscriminate list. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The criteria are so vague as to be worthless. Similarity of plots or themes is (with a few exceptions) subjective. And what exactly is a "close period of time"? Clarityfiend 17:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions. -- Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the phenomenon exist and is sometimes covered in newsstories when it occurs. The criteria should be sharpened though and the list should only include movie combinations where a reliable sources can be found that noted and mentioned the similarity between the movies. In addition: there is nothing "miraculous" about an article surviving AfD with "no consensus". Wikipedia has always had the policy that, when in doubt, don't delete. A "no consensus" result is the same as a "keep" only with not-near unanimous support. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see an article being written on the topic of "copycat films" but this list fails WP:NOT. Furthermore, attempting to categorize/classify these films as "copycats" due to a percieved similarity between subject matters and a similar release date is painfully original research. Without substantial sourcing to prove that "Movie X and Movie Y have similar themes" grouping them as such is a primary observation and Wikipedia is not the place for such things. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a well-known convention in the film industry-- even more so than the lead balloon of the "let's get out of here" paradox -- that movies with similar themes are often produced by competing studios and released at the same time. Not copycats (who would copy "First Daughter"?), because they're parallel developments. It's more like deja vu. Hence, Black Sunday and Two Minute Warning, or The Truman Show and EdTV. There's a similar trend in television shows, such as 1974's "Happy Days" and the less well-known "Sons and Daughters". The critics here just aren't film critics. Roger Ebert has acknowledged this same Hollywood oddity, usually when reviewing the second of two such films. Great list. Mandsford 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and trivia. >Radiant< 11:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel that this article is a good one, as it keeps track of such phenomena with relative ease. Skrooball 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of films with similar themes and release dates has not been able to exercise any sort of notability as an article. Under WP:NOTE, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." (Bolding is mine.) Furthermore, the note for that particular passage says, "Note 1: Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, January 6, 1992. ) is plainly trivial." (Bolding is mine again.) As I have said and some other editors have said, the so-called phenomenon of copycat films or copycat media in general need to be explored with significant coverage, and not through reviews saying, "Hey, these films came out at the same time and have the same plot. Anyway, the first one was good, and the second one sucked." The listing of these details are indiscriminate details that are synthesized to support the argument of this topic. "Significant coverage" would be more appropriate, and if there is no detailed commentary on this phenomenon, then it may not necessarily have encyclopedic value. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be "significant coverage" in your view, then? There are two external links in the article itself which discuss the phenomenon in general. One of which points to a Washington Post article that gives several examples. So what would satisfy your need for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I vote Strong Keep, myself. It's a good article, well sourced, and all the objections to it seem like rationalizations, at best. They amount to little more than "I don't like it". 169.198.254.6 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Alphachimp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC) with reason "CSD A1 - Limited to no context". Non-admin close. cab 06:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cibao Airport Flight Schedule

WP is not a directory, an updated schedule of flights is not needed, the article's relevant information (airlines, destinations,...) seems to be all at Cibao International Airport - Nabla 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a..uh... airport flight schedule. --Haemo 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Resolute 03:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article appears to have already been deleted. It was only one the AfD board for a couple of hours. What gives? --Nonstopdrivel 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speedy deleted by Alphachimp. CSD A1.--Ispy1981 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decision engineering

This article appears to be about a corporate methodology that has been machine translated from the French Wikipedia. The original version was speedily deleted by two separate administrators before being submitted yet again, after which the second admin (SR13) opted not to delete it a third time. Problems besides the poor translation and absence of context include a lack of English source material, assertion of notability, and the probability that this is spam or self-promotion. — Feezo (Talk) 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's comprehensive discussion. --Nonstopdrivel 04:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a realtively new discipline. It has achieved academic recognition, and has books, and companies trying to sell its methodology. The companies are not listed here so this is not a spam. GB 11:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL 16:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its terribly wordy and frilly. Language issues aside, I believe its not notable. DeletexC | ☎ 04:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete see Feezo Tdxz 17:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When and if the French version is improved, then have it put at Wikipedia:Translation so a real human being capable of translating it can translate it. -Yupik 11:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Sr 13 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Championship Wrestling

Article appears to be vanity page without credible sources that would confirm notability. Author of page Cwmoneybags has few edits outside of this page and its related pages [16], and is creating what appears to be a walled garden. Darrenhusted 01:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Plus three template are at TfD that have individual votes as well

Delete as vanity listcruft supported only by references to the author's own web pages. --Nonstopdrivel 01:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as vanity, walled garden, and not notable. Articles also fails WP:CORP, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bmg916^Speak 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All NN wrestling fed. I suggest nomiating all the events as well, since they would be considered NN anyways (the same way we have deleted NN events of WWE/ROH/ECW/etc.). TJ Spyke 04:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL I placed a prod on each of the associated articles because they all failed WP:V. Prods have been removed by the creator of the article with no discussion or sources added. Article and all associated should be deleted. - T-75|talk|contribs 07:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all both the main page and all the other pages in this walled garden should be deleted as a vanity project that fails all the basic rules of Wikipedia MPJ-DK 11:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole unsourced walled garden; we have some indie feds around, but they're generally larger, more active, and have a bigger impact on the field in some manner. The events are definitely overboard. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Weed out the Walled Garden, and none of them pass WP:N or WP:V — Preceding unsigned comment added by SirFozzie (talk • contribs)
Delete all as above, tear down the wall. Burntsauce 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All + Templates, per nom and other users. Nikki311 02:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the entire garden per WP:N and [17]. Sala Skan 15:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all PCW seems to be non-notable, and by definition anything else about it is also non-notable. It's a walled garden anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all to hell as per what happened with the ECWF. --SteelersFan UK06 23:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Peacent 00:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India Crisis

Article appears to be POV pushing and not simply providing information. Captain panda 00:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly PoV. -FeralDruid 00:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete post haste, personal essay, is not neutral and fails to provide any sources. Mak (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per (talk); exactly my first impression. Article appears irretrievable to me, as there is no credible, NPOV information therein that could not be found elsewhere. --Nonstopdrivel 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per CSD#G10. ~ Wiki hermit 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Massive POV, per Wikihermit G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this just seems to be advertising for a charitable/political group or movement. This probably could have been "prod"ed. Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 02:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Advert. Elmo 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Utter nonsense. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this soapbox. Doczilla 09:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G10 seems harsh, but it certainly is POV nonsense. east.718 10:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a snowball.--Edtropolis 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Massive PoV, no sources -- soapbox. --Iknowyourider (t c) 19:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Carlosguitar 21:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Burntsauce 23:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, blatant POV, couldn't even be rewritten as a proper article because the subject itself ("India Crisis") is just a soapbox speech. Fourohfour 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV article whose topic avoids neutral point of view guidelines. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; this article is original research, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. No arguments for keeping have addressed this. --Core desat 04:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goal horn

Article about a rather small part of ice hockey games. Unsourced, and doesn't assert notability aside from "Goal horns are played when the home team in a hockey game scores a goal". If kept, needs to be cleaned up due to major listcruft problems. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for pure listcruft; nothing more than a collection of esoteric trivia of interest to very few. The information would be better located in a fan page, though in significantly pared down form might be merged with another NHL or related article. --Nonstopdrivel 01:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal delete with the note that I have no objection to including this information on the individual team's page. Part of the problem with this article is that the equivalent is played at pretty much *every* competitive endeavor, whether it's Hockey, Basketball, Baseball, or I dunno, Competitive Ballroom Dancing. See Music at sporting events for a more encyclopedic attempt. This *might* be merged there, but I doubt it'd be a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft. As someone from Canada, I can see a certain distinctness to the goal horn, but do not find them notable. What's next - a list if the ice surface sizes for all teams? Considered in that light, inclusion on the team page seems proper. Reference to the baseball horn at the Rogers Centre is actually referenced on that page as an example of where this info likely belongs. Citations would be required even to include this info on the team pages. Pever 03:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also reads as WP:OR. Resolute 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete WP:OR, fails WP:V (although I can't imagine anyone making all of that up). RGTraynor 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expand or move to Wiktionary I took a look at some similar topics: Train whistle, Air horn, Deer horn, and Steam whistle. Each of these is a complete article, with history of the technology to make the sounds, how they're used, diagrams, photos, etc. If this article can be similarly developed, then I'd say keep. If not, then move the basic definition to Wiktionary ColtsScore 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've put a note on User talk:Ohyeh as she/he created the article ColtsScore 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although for some of the stadiums and only if there is a source, it can be put into the respective articles while the goal horn can be described/merge into the hockey or NHL (or other league) articles. A list like that and especially with the lack of references is not needed. Fails WP:V.--JForget 00:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I think its an interesting and readable topic if its presented correctly, and as shown here, there is still a lot of work to be done. I really particularly like how they say what chord each horn is... if its true. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 00:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Croat Canuck. --Djsasso 05:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think there are alternatives to deletion here. Firstly, the chords are correct (I downloaded some chords), secondly I don't see any attempt at at least placing maintainence tags, and thirdly, it's an important feautre in NHL, anyways at least in Canada. Evilclown93_(talk) 20:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article subject belong on the Wikitionary. GoodDay 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I'm not certain how important knowing the chord being played at however many decibels is to the game itself--it's essentially a celebratory function, similar to the stereotypical 'GOAL' shouted for half a minute for football/soccer. I can see a use for it as trivia, and the argument isn't the veracity or accuracy, Evilclown93--it's whether this is a list that needs to be maintained each time a team changes its name, arena, or horn. And as a side note to FrozenPurpleCube, horns are generally not used in basketball, a sport where the home team may score thirty to sixty times in a 40-48 minute game. That might be too much even for the most die-hard fan! IL-Kuma 07:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article should stay, but with many changes. There should be a history of when the goal horn was introduced (For the record, the Chicago Blackhawks started this in the mid-1980's) and how it has become a part of hockey. Rather than list the chord for each horn, used what type of horn is used for each team (Kahlenberg being the most common brand). --Capsgm2002 19:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Croat Canuck. Bsroiaadn^Talk 01:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bank (Casino)

This article is about a fictional casino, one which has appeared in only one film to date. I don't think it's notable enough to have its own article -- there just isn't enough information about it, nor is it culturally relevant enough, to be encyclopedic. Powers ^T 00:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above or Merge with Oceans Thirteen. --Nonstopdrivel 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oceans Thirteen, as this isn't notable in itself G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in of itself. Perhaps in the future, if the casino plays a continuing role in the Ocean's n franchise (haven't seen the new movie), the casino might merit its own article, but not now. --Kyoko 02:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the info to Ocean Thirteen.--JForget 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge or redirect; there is nothing to preserve here, and who is going to type "The Bank (Casino)", really? The hotel was actually computer-generated, I believe, a production detail that should be recorded on the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This article and this debate have significant issues. Two sources have been provided, both in German. The two pieces of coverage are clearly related to one another, and I have no idea about the sources: one at least (queer.de) may not be independent enough to confer notability. That said, no delete comments came up after the first keep comments, and the article has been rewritten and additional sources have been found. But this issue doesn't yet seem settled. Mango juice^talk 14:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschfeld Eddy Foundation

Brand new charity, not notable. Delete exolon 00:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: uncited, only assertion of notability is subject's own website. --Nonstopdrivel 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep new sources added:

another 407 entries for "Hirschfeld Eddy Stiftung" on google.de

--Lebeneben 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable organisation (or at least, no proof of notability) G 1 ggy ^Talk/_Contribs 02:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While may be notable at some point, this organization has just started out, so nothing that asserts notability. However, I suggest a mention of this foundation to the articles of Fannyann Eddy and Magnus Hirschfeld, whom the foundation was named for.--Ispy1981 05:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur. --Nonstopdrivel 06:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason why it should be deleted. This Foundation is unique. There is no other Foundation for this purpose.

The initiative for the Foundation came from the Lesbian and Gay Federation in Germany (LSVD), which also provides organizational support for the project. The LSVD has stepped up its contribution to international human rights advocacy in recent years and was formally granted consultative status at the United Nations in 2006. The Hirschfeld-Eddy Foundation intends to link in with this process and will work together with other human rights organizations to develop its agenda.--Loveisahumanright 06:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting Initiative. Relevant because of its Uniqueness. I added the Council--Nicetobe 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the organization is brand new, it's uniqueness and ties to notable individuals makes it interesting. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This charity's activities seem to be conducted in German so a language and cultural barrier will delay the recognition of their work in the US. Their council is an impressive multi-national list and they are working for human rights of LGBT people who have had to struggle for any recognition within the United Nations. I recommend German-speaking LGBT editors be invited to look at article subject's homepage to verify notability or appropriate information, there seems to be a lengthy list of press releases or media references. Benjiboi 21:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those involved in Hirschfeld/Humboldt and their work are established, as are the international contributors. I see no reason to delete. Evolauxia 15:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I see the content is much more reliable than it was when the discussion started. I hope the majority will agree, this is a strong keep now.--Loveisahumanright 21:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

apparently our french friends see also a strong keep: [fr:Fondation Hirschfeld-Eddy ]--Loveisahumanright 21:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, the Foundation is very important in Germany for lobbying the german and european politics into support for organgisations in african, asian states, where homosexuality is still illegal. The foundation has a strong influence in german Development aid. I read in many german newspapers and magazines over the foundation GLGerman 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest, the political influence is connected with its fondation forming LSVD. But it has a good reputation and outcome.--Loveisahumanright 09:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep formed from a major LGBT organization, say that makes it notable. Kwsn^(Ni!) 04:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naisa

The article does not assert notability that would satisfy WP:WEB, and this edit Efforts have been made to write an article about it in the newspaper, but the efforts proved to be futile shows that there are no likely reliable sources, and also proves the notability point. I didn't speedy it because I wanted to give the authors time to improve it, which has not happened. Kevin 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also fails under WP:ORG, as it is WP:NN and has no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. ~ Wiki hermit 01:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per all of the above. Eddie 02:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 30 members in a small town that isn't even named hardly qualifies as notable and doesn't merit the description "National" either. --Nonstopdrivel 05:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not Speedy delete. Despite the official-sounding name, when you actually read the article there's nothing to indicate that this is anything more than yet another minor community/bulletin board. 30 members?! Article itself provides the case for the prosecution if you ask me... Fourohfour 18:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, not likely to be notable. Sr 13 05:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming Incident

Minor Internet hoax. No good secondary sources exist; contradictory information abounds. Thunderbunny 04:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Im sure alot of people who see the video come here because they're wondering "What the hell was that". This article probably helps them out.--jonrev 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, this is generally considered a bad argument in AfD discussions. For another, the article really isn't written very well, and therefore raises more questions than it answers. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not written well? Excuse me? I've seen your articles, Thunderbunny, and you're not exactly Noah Webster, either. And Jonrev has a point. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless secondary sources can be found. This article relies solely on primary sources, which can be used to corroborate the veracity of secondary sources but do not in themselves fulfill WP:RS. I frankly don't see how an internet video qualifies as noteworthy. --Nonstopdrivel 05:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now There's nothing to suggest, at the moment, that this thing got any press coverage outside Wyoming. Though, Max Headroom started small, but I'd be crystalballing if I said it was the next Max Headroom.--Ispy1981 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...it didn't get any press coverage in Wyoming, either. The event didn't actually happen. A remote location in Wyoming was specifically chosen for its lack of population. Thunderbunny 05:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Something Awful. It's notable enough for the information itself to be useful, but not enough for its own article. Since it centers on a prank by Something Awful members, it is worth listing among the other SA pranks in that article. Rob T Firefly 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...the "prank" (I'm not even sure this can be called that...it seems more like an ARG that someone got tired of running) didn't make it off the SA forums. And, to make matters more confusing, SenorBambos is now denying that anyone from SA produced the videos. This is the main reason why external sources are necessary to make a viable Wikipedia entry. Thunderbunny 00:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is supposed to be a notable prank, though it sounds rather feeble to me . What RSs have written about it and said so. ?

Delete per the above anonymous editor. --Haemo 07:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's interesting (and notable) on a number of levels: as an internet prank/meme, as an (imaginary) broadcast signal intrusion, and just because the videos are awfully spooky. It's worth an article. RMc 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you didn't include "it has some decent secondary sources" in that list. Thunderbunny 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should tell me why you're so hot to delete this all of a sudden, hmmm? RMc 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, your petulant little harassment campaign isn't really helping your cause here. Thunderbunny 03:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Responsibility Assessment

The obvious POV problems of nearly every word in the article aside, this article is just a big quote from a law and a lot of angry commentary (probably by someone who had to pay this fine). There are no independent sources to confirm that this is any more notable than any traffic fine anywhere. Savidan 22:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN mechanism for a particular state's point system. --Dhartung | Talk 23:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup - obviously a notable "stealth tax", just poorly treated so far.--Mike18xx 04:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't "obvious"; its based on available sources. Since we have no good sources for this, it can't really be effectively cleaned up. Savidan 15:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing more than negative commentary on the law in violation of WP:NPOV. Also classifies as WP:OR and violates WP:RS. Relies on a single primary source that is itself the subject of the article's commentary. --Nonstopdrivel 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly written POV rant. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Department of Motor Vehicles.--Edtropolis 15:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IP198 19:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Zoo

Article about a band which does not make a sourced claim that meets the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Savidan 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending cites -- The USO tours more than establish notability.--Mike18xx 04:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found and the article is thoroughly cleaned up. As a two-time Iraq veteran, I can testify that appearing on a USO tour does not of itself establish notability, since many USO acts are simply small-time artists seeking publicity (i.e., they're cheap or free). While we did occasionally get big names over there, the majority of entertainment was provided by people no one had really heard of. The reason for this is simple: most big artists simply don't want the risk of traveling in the Middle East. --Nonstopdrivel 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By WP:MUSIC, international tours only establish notability if they are reported in reliable sources. None are given however. Albums seem to be self-released, at least I could not find any information to the contrary. --B. Wolterding 10:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per WP:RS and WP:BAND.--Edtropolis 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Needs sourcing to be viable. JJL 18:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, appropriate information is at Drill instructor. Sr 13 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drill Instructor Creed

Directory of links, no other appropriate info. Recommend deletion of page, and sectstub at drill instructor. Rifleman 82 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and sectstub per Rifleman. Drill instructor has a section about the creed, but it links to this article. Unneeded--Ispy1981 05:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on sight. This personal essay violates WP:NPOV, is poorly written, and is unnecessary. --Nonstopdrivel 05:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rambling, poorly written essay per above. Doczilla 06:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It's a poorly written, unsourced, POV military-fancruft essay. it's barely notable enough to get a mention in Drill instructor, let alone an article of it's own. Elmo 09:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the (poorly written) Drill instructor. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It makes no sense, and there is a D.I. page already. JJL 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge onto Drill instructor ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. -- Carom 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there anything in this article that really needs a Merge? I have added the Army and Marine DI Creeds into the Drill Instructor article, this version, if article edited further. Other Creeds could be added from other services, should others know the AF, Navy, Coast Guard, and any other worldwide services' creeds. Other information about specific creeds could be added as needed, as could anything from this article that is salvagable, if necessary or desirable. LaughingVulcan 02:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made please review as resources have been cited, a search of subject needs specifics only as in defining. The entry like oath of enlistment is specific. Drill Instructor provides detailed information that can overwhelm readers when explaining the difference in branches of military training policies, especially if all they want is a copy of the creeds available. Public interest in the subject is when presenting inscribed versions, practice in recital, persons sworn to protect constitutional rights, or historical research as to origins of creeds of military services. Merging is not effective when all a reader needs is specifics. Search relevance is optimized by 68.7% a variance of +/-2% with appropriate links. Like Google Mini, you can offer relevant and secure search across intranets, file servers, and business applications The Google Mini works with over 220 different file formats and its integration.

Drill Instructor Creed Thank you, 2020

If the parent article is not well elaborated in the first place, why should the daughter article be so long? WP is not a directory. All these creeds can be moved to wikisource, and a brief description about their purposes etc be stubbed at drill instructor. --Rifleman 82 07:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia project failure is eminent

damage control on clean up project should be main focus.

please be more specific when addressing articles. Parent article assuming Drill instructor, and daughter article Drill Instructor creed? If so how can adding relevant references used to establish factual information, living examples, and categories that cross reference subject matter. Makes it to long?

Editors should be able to proof article copies, verify subject matter facts based on their area of expertise, guide and direct entries into the correct projects with detailed instructions on the how to move. What I'm saying is, there are many people that have the ability to contribute information, but it is up to the editors to direct the flow. how the project is failing is there is no guide on the hierarchical structures of subject matter. It is better to establish a visible data structure diagram with a (modifiable frame, changeable only by editors to add additional sub topics)

This diagram can be viewed by writers and when they see a slot that needs information they can submit their article information to an editor that has charge over that subject matter.

once a collection of articles on that particular subject has developed, the editor can then ask for opinions as to which writers article should lead that entry. That writer then becomes the editor for that entry and compiles all contributions and sets up the sub directories. All contributions should be archived, but it will be the primary writer that modifies any changes.

example Article U.S.Congress, primary writer then list dates leaving blank slots as to the person that served at that time, primary writer give an open project date and close date. Editor then chooses best entry, which then that person becomes the editor and archivist for that entry. To clean a project is harder then starting over, it is better to clean the slate and have project managers start a data structure diagram and develop it from there and appoint new project manager editors based on their knowledge of the subject matter.

People want to help write, just give them a selection of what is needed and on what subjects. with a project start and end date.

I may wait until their is a better structure design in Wikipedia, I have seen this house of cards before. Once you start cleaning, you end up pulling out important support structures that collapse levels that have become dependent on the support of another subject. I want to help, as do many people. All we need is a list of subject matters under research, project dates, location to archive, and article structure template.

The most important use of link exchange from every ones point of view is that a lot of search engines rank searches higher depending on the number of entries that point to the information. There are a lot more algorithms to it than that but reciprocal linking is a part of it..

Most search engines theories is that the more links that point to subject matter, the more relevant the information is. That's why reciprocal linking is a good Internet strategy that works.

See automata theory

A computer science discipline that concerns an abstract device called an "automaton," which performs a specific computational or recognition function. Networks of automata are designed to mimic human behavior, thought patterns and organizational information skills.

Thanks, --Research2020 2:50pm, 19 June 2007

Response Uh, no.... ? Wikipedia is not a Linkfarm. So if you think it is, then yes, you will be disappointed. And this article, with its references to "Oaths of Office" (which DI Creeds are not,) its references to the other United States armed services links (which are provided at their own subjects in Wikipedia,) its inability to talk on a single point of subject, and flatly erroneous information (the Creed quoted is the Drill Sergeants Creed of the US Army - not "the" DI Creed,) make this article irredeemable and darn near an A1 speedy. I appreciate your attempt to make Wikipedia "better" by attempting to optimize search engines, or whatever, but first the article has to be an article. LaughingVulcan 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Realms

NN live action role playing group. Fredrick day 08:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not asserted (nor likely to be provable.) Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 09:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kim. Yechiel Man 13:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up in school one day. JJL 16:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr 13 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinthe

Real world location but this article is a description of it's use in a NN Live action RPG rather than about the place (which already has an article) - which I'm not even sure is notable enough to deserve a line in any other article - let alone an article of it's self. Fredrick day 09:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Doczilla 09:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Tikiwont 11:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Weak Keep, on the verge of No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 14:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out

Why do we have an entire article on some random, faked youtube video? This _might_ be worthy of a 3-line mention in some other article about viral marketing or youtube... but not an article. This is even less relevant to an encyclopedia than most of the fancruft... Bushytails 19:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (Make my vote "Summarize and use to start 'List of internet viral advertisements'" Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete This is fancruft ffm ^yes? 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have delisted this from WP:DYK - we looks like regular donkeys if we are featuring an article that we are debating deleting.--Doc^g 20:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This was a pretty noteworthy event that got lots of media, it should be put into another article as per Bushytails. Makgraf 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Bryson 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushytails and Makgraf. Flyguy649 21:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, media coverage should earn it a mention at least. Radagast 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge... somewhere. I'm not sure where to merge this... the page is linked from the viral marketing page already, and it's too much detail to include it all there. I'd be sort of inclined to keep it due to the huge amount of publicity it received both before its fakeness was revealed (the Today Show had a long segment about it and what it said about the importance of hair to women, and the Tonight Show parodied it) and after (the actresses appeared on Good Morning America). Pinball22 21:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a media event. It had its 15 minutes of fame, but there is nothing encyclopedic about it. The press coverage just shows that TV/newspaper editors would not always make good encyclopedia editors. A girl screaming and doing the kind of fake crying not heard since "I Love Lucy" and pretending to cut her hair off does not belong in an encyclopedia. Inkpaduta 22:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you just opened your account last week, and presently have nothing more than "So this is Wikipedia. Huh?" on your user page, I am not taking any argument from you about what does and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia seriously, not when policies like WP:WEB are something everyone who decides to tromp off to AFD as much as you have this first week are something you should have committed to memory.

What you like and dislike is not a criterion for deletion and never will be. This is Wikipedia. Yeah! Daniel Case 02:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is what you like and dislike criteria for inclusion. Bushytails 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I put this up because I like it? I wrote and researched this article because I thought it belonged here on Wikipedia, that if I didn't do it properly someone else would not. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Inkpaduta. --Metropolitan90 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-written, well-referenced article that seems to pass WP:WEB quite clearly. Multiple non-trivial mentions, and it got parodied on the tonight show? Wikipedia is not paper people. IronGargoyle 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the people who said merge, please state where you want to merge. For the people who want to delete, think first of WP:WEB, which is Wikipedia policy. This viral video clearly meets WP:WEB as IronGargoyle stated. The article is well-sourced, with many references to newspapers (not tabloids and such). Nishkid 64 01:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bushytail said "use to start 'List of internet viral advertisements" and several of us wanted to merge as per him (or her, I don't want to be gendernormative) so that's where we want to merge to. Makgraf 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, sorry about that. I didn't see that the nominator had wanted to merge somewhere. Nishkid 64 15:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is a perfectly legitimate article. I have no idea why it's being considered for deletion here. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Speedy Keep, close debate and ~~block nominator~~. A clear example of a bad-faith nomination, judging by the nominator's obvious unfamiliarity with WP:WEB and implied unwillingness to bother learning. I have nominated many articles for deletion ... I wouldn't have created this one to begin with if I wasn't incredibly familiar with WP:WEB, and the meaning of "multiple non-trivial news coverage." I included references to reliable sources for precisely that reason.
That some people seem to be embarrassed that this made the Main Page shows that we need better deletionists than what we've been getting lately. As recently as six months ago this nomination would have been laughed off AfD.
As for merging it, no. Unless you want to merge everything else in this vein, like Ellen Feiss, Bus Uncle, and even lonelygirl15 back into List of Internet phenomena, which is long enough as it is. I found enough out there doing research to justify a stand-alone article and created it. It passed newpage patrol, which is where most of the real cruft gets deleted (believe me, I know). I'm really dismayed (can you tell?) that I have to go here and take the time to restate what should be obvious to anyone who knows policy reasonably well. The merge arguments are good-faith; the deletion ones are not. Daniel Case 01:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are not appreciated. I do happen to be familiar with the web notability guidelines, and there may indeed be a way of twisting the (disputed) wording to count random youtube videos as notable... But that doesn't mean the article should exist. It's a youtube video. Not even a real one at that. There are many millions of youtube videos. Should there be an article on every one that gets a mention in the press? Should we include all advertisements, youtube, TV, radio, etc as well? It's just another random video, that no one will even remember a week from now.

My personal solution would be a "List of notable internet viral advertisements" or similar, where things like this can have a one-paragraph summary and some analysis (effects, aftermath, etc). As to the other articles you list, Ellen Feiss is a bonafide actor with appearances in a french short film and televised commercials, The Bus Uncle was an actual event (and not a pr stunt) involving a criminal act resulting in long-term effects, social changes, and so forth, and even Lonelygirl15 is a series of videos, corresponding websites and blogs, a commercial entity, profitable game, the actor appearing in other productions, and so forth. This isn't any of that. It's some random faked video that a couple news outlets mentioned, with no bearing on reality.

I generally count myself as an inclusionest... I don't even mind the 27 trillion or so imaginary pokemon creature pages. But giving youtube videos their own pages is too far. Bushytails 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so it's still a categorical matter. If I read you right, the article should be deleted not because it isn't a notable subject, but because YouTube videos shouldn't have their own articles. I tend to agree that things that have never received news coverage, such as that wedding party doing the dance from Michael Jackson's "Thriller"[18] will never merit their own articles despite widespread linkage.

But it isn't just a YouTube video; it was part of a marketing campaign. And even before it was revealed as such, it was the subject of a good deal of news coverage devoted specifically to it. I don't know how you can argue, based on existing policy, that that doesn't merit a separate article. Based on the amount of information out there, I don't see how a list could hold all these things. Eventually, if this becomes common (which I'm not sure it will), this will still have been one of the first.

You might want to consider also that the Ellen Feiss article was created long before her appearance in the short film (short film? What's the difference between that and a video?) and that the commercials she has appeared in are what made her notable enough for inclusion and a separate article. That lonelygirl15 was originally deleted, restored after deletion review and then speedy kept.

What of that favorite of everybody who sees their vanity article going down in flames here, Star Wars kid? Twice nominated for deletion, twice kept.

A "couple" of news outlets here includes Canada's major newspaper (The Globe and Mail) and TV networks, coverage echoed south of the border (I would leave it to Canadian editors to point out that, had the video been filmed in the U.S. by Americans and first covered by The New York Times and CNN, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation). Your use of disparaging terms that do not accord with the facts but suggest an emotional reaction to the subject of the article ("random faked video") again is contraindicative to your pleas that this nomination is based on a thorough understanding of Wikipedia policy.

Forgotten after a week? Sounds more like a hope on your part to me. One could have said that about all the other Internet phenomena. And even if the public does forget about them after a week, that doesn't change any notability the subject may have earned through news coverage.

Personal attacks? I apologize for the tone of my remarks, but I would consider that, had a new editor created this article, the way you have phrased your arguments for its deletion and counterarguments to me arguably would open you up to charges of violating WP:BITE. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say no youtube videos should have articles... just not ones with no lasting effects or other notable characteristics. Nor does being in the news (canadian, american, or otherwise) make something encyclopedia-worthy... Should every cat fetched from a tree by the fire department have an article, since it was reported in the odds-and-ends section of a few newspapers? Being part of a marketing campaign _really_ doesn't make something encyclopedia-worthy... an article for every advertising campaign would be absurd, would it not? And just because an article doesn't blatantly violate policy doesn't automatically merit its inclusion ("... the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.") As to having too much information to put in a list-article... most of that information is really not needed. Hell, more than half the article is just a blow-by-blow description of the video! Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know this won't have lasting effects? It could launch one of the actress's careers. And I think it will certainly be discussed anytime and anywhere viral video marketing comes up. It will have an effect on that field, to be sure. In any event, the future's possible lack of interest is not a reason to delete, or we'd be without a lot of one-hit wonders.

You confuse major and minor news coverage. No, every cat rescued from a tree is not notable. But my argument was not that this was covered per se, but that this received serious coverage from major newspapers and TV networks. (See how I applied this distinction from the opposite position here. I'm quite aware of that difference; I wouldn't have created the article if I weren't.

Yes, there's too much info for a list article. I have that synopsis in there because it's essentially a short film (see the categories), so I followed part of the WP:FILM template, which includes a synopsis and character list.

I also think it's just better having separate articles than a list ... List of Internet phenomena pretty much covers that already, and list articles, as such, have softer boundaries. Believe me, they require someone pay constant attention to them and rigorously evaluate new submissions to keep them from getting crufty (the best require that any new submission be discussed on the talk page first). I think it would be too likely to get bogged down with marginal cases (if you produce a series of viral videos to promote your garage sale, should they be on that list? Probably not, unless they get lots of eyeballs). If you have separate articles, it makes it harder to try to pick up some notability by adding it to a list here.

I also think it likely that such a list would be vulnerable to spamming by anons trying to get their videos legitimized. More headache for a maintainer.

In the area of detail, you might also take a look at Bus Uncle having a full transcript of the video (to me, completely unnecessary), which is much more detailed than that synopsis I wrote. Daniel Case 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to assume good faith. The nominator didn't say that this video didn't exist, or that it hadn't received media coverage, just that it wasn't worthy of an article. Arguably the standards of WP:WEB should be stricter, to reduce the systemic bias in favor of web content -- web content is accessible to all Wikipedia editors and is recent, thus making news coverage, if any, easy to locate. Demanding that the nominator be blocked is going too far. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't demand the nominator be blocked; it's just a suggestion and one I now withdraw. Still, I think that if something has been effectively researched by an editor willing to take the time to do it, passed newpage patrol and been accepted for DYK, it has already been vetted properly and reasonable deletion arguments are moot. I cannot help but suspect that someone had an emotional reaction to the idea of this being linked from the Main Page purely because of the subject and chose this as a way of retaliating à la KaDee Strickland's turn as the Main Page featured article ... I see many similarities between the tone, if not the arguments, of those arguing for deletion here and the people who got mad about it being on the Main Page, then tried to tried to defeature it for purely emotional reasons (that article's creator, too, followed existing policy and procedures and seems to have been punished for it).

I argue for its retention on the grounds that existing WP:WEB standards, as quite a few other voters correctly note, could not justify its deletion. As I so often say when the shoe's on the other foot, a deletion discussion is not the place to argue for a change in policy, anymore than you'd use a traffic trial to argue for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If the nominator does want to seriously consider what sort of notability standards we should apply to individual video clips, I would happily set up such a policy proposal page if he withdrew the nomination. Daniel Case 08:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many unencyclopedic articles make it through the new page patrollers... an understaffed department at best, almost as bad as the recent changes patrol.

Oh, well, if you do say so. Thank God Wikipedia has people like you. If you think NPP and RCP are understaffed, you should drop what you're doing here and go help out. (I, having done both, have a different impression. I have gone through many a log page of fifty new pages or edits and found the most delete- or revertable have already been dealt with (although it's important when doing both to go completely through the list no matter how little work you find to do. That's when stuff gets away).

And it had several days as a nomination on DYK for someone to say, hey, maybe this shouldn't be here? What about those people (who also see a lot of ridiculous new articles)? Are they a bunch of incompetents too?

You argue some voters support it... but ignore the ones voting to delete it. And many policies, in spirit if not in word, do not suggest this is a topic worthy of an article

Are you trying out for BBJAODN? Seriously, this sounds like the same logic you hear from every garage band trying to get its vanity article kept.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (says something about half the article being a plot summary, too).

That's not in WP:NOT. (The part in parentheses, anyway).

Or "Notable ... means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice'. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'. ... It is not 'newsworthiness.'" Or the WP:WEB you like so much... "... offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." What achievements did this accomplish, other than a few parodies?

I would think that getting a seven-digit hit figure at YouTube would count as an achievement (and how does one, exactly, accomplish an achievement? But I digress). Judging from occasional looks at the site's main page, it's rather unusual for a video to be seen that many different times, especially within a two-week period. I don't if there are any rankings somewhere; but I'm sure that would be on them.

Impact... zero. Historical significance... if there were a number less than zero that could be applied, this would be it.

Those are purely subjective judgements. Even if they weren't, I'd argue the same is true of Mr. Blobby and yet it's there.

This article mentions none of that, likely because none exists. All the articles you used as examples of ones not deleted, however, do contain a subject with impact or historical significance.

What was the historical significance of Ellen Feiss? Does the article document how many more people bought Macs because of her saying "Beepbeepbeepbeepbeep"? Does it need to? I'm missing something here. It was just an unintentionally funny ad that a lot of people remembered, which is why there's an article on her and her subsequent doings of note.

And when Star Wars kid was kept, his parents hadn't filed suit against the school and there weren't yet a million parodies to document in established media.

If a month from now, this video is shown to have had some effect on the planet, it may be worthy of inclusion...

If "some effect on the planet" (and what, exactly, does that mean, anyway). were the standard for keeping articles, we'd have a very small Wikipedia. What about all those fictional characters and webcomics? I don't think they've got much "impact on the planet", but we've kept quite a few.

And why bother recreating the article a month from now? Why not just keep it now and delete it later if it "doesn't have an impact on the planet" (Perhaps it will raise the average temperature a tenth of a degree?)

but as of now, it's just another forgettable, non-notable fad. As I said and quoted above, not violating policy doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic.

And not having a policy-based reason to augment WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't mean you can have it deleted, either.

I'm all for any encyclopedia-worthy article being on the main page... it's not about the main page, it's about whether this should have its own article at all. Perhaps as your next project, you should condense the article's content into one or two paragraphs (deleting the huge plot summary would almost get it there), and start a "List of internet viral advertisements" page? This article would appear to be notable enough for a mention on a list, and the list would certainly be DYK-worthy if written well...

We generally don't use lists on DYK all that much. As for your other arguments, see my other counterarguments.

As to withdrawing the nomination... only 4 people have voted keep, with 9 delete or merge.

This is why I ignore all the delete votes. Most don't state a real reason, and one that goes into most depth is by a week-old account who seems to go around AFD basically saying "Delete this! Delete this! I don't think it belongs!" Any closing administrator would note that the keep votes are based on more sound arguments and perhaps discount most of the delete votes.

Withdrawing it would not agree with community consensus.

You're the nominator. You can withdraw even if everyone else agrees with you. Community consensus is not binding on a nominator. At least not in my experience.

Were they all keeps, it might be an option, but they're not.

See above.

In any case, you've heard my opinion, and now it's time to hear from the rest of the community. Bushytails 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've heard from everyone we're going to hear from, and the result will be no consensus, which defaults to keep. Daniel Case 05:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cruft. 1ne 07:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cruftilious cruft. Edeans 17:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. "Cruft" alone is a poor argument for deletion. Article meets WP:WEB handily and demonstrates notability via massive viewing and popular media impact. Wiki'dWitch 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came on Wikipedia to see if this video was a fake or not and I am guessing that a lot of other people do too, considering the massive number of views the video received. Tlynhen 08:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly why I created it, and why Wikipedia exists. Thanks! Daniel Case 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Whilst I'm not too fond of the subject, it does seem to pass notability. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labyrinthe}}
 <!-- New entries go to the TOP of the list.  NOT HERE.  This is the BOTTOM.  -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bride Has Massive Hair Wig Out}}