Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2008

< December 31	January 2 >

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 JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Jazz Singer DVD

This was tagged for speedy deletion because of notability, but has been tagged and untagged at least twice. Keilana 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article fails to assert notability of the product per WP:N and may be nothing more than an advertisement for the product. Mh29255 (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still feel that any worthwhile content should be moved to the entry for the film. As an example, blade runner just had a new "ultimate" release with several versions, commentaries, documentaries, a carrying case, film stills, a book, etc... and warrants only a single line of text in the article for the film. Gront (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the person who created this article. I did not create it for advertising purposes, but rather for reference. I had bought the DVD set, and as mentioned it was filled with numerous old and obscure movie titles. I created this article so that anyone who maybe also bought the set and wants to research the movie titles included, can go to one simple page and do so. Additionally, I do not feel that this article is any different than other articles detailing DVD collections, such as: Walt Disney Treasures: Wave Seven, Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1, Popeye the Sailor: 1933-1938, Volume 1, The Woody Woodpecker and Friends Classic Cartoon Collection, etc. Please do not delete this page, but rather clean it up or give me advice if you feel necessary. Mpmcarthur78 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are articles on collections of cartoons. While I feel that their appropriateness for an encyclopedia may indeed be questionable, your article is for a deluxe DVD set centered around one film. A separate article on the set seems superfluous without some sort of information other than what's on it. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This kind of information can be found on online stores. It could be added to the main Jazz Singer article, doesn't warrant it's own entry. 06:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomwiki (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, individual DVD packagings of a film have no independent notability from that film. It's not even worth a redirect as it's an unlikely search term.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten and merge. Although I never use this as a rationale to keep an article, it's always sad when an article someone worked hard on doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. This information (of which much more detail can be found on the Amazon page) would be better off summarized and merged into the Jazz Singer article. Tanthalas39 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shorten to a single paragraph and merge into The Jazz Singer (1927 film). Wikipedia is not a DVD review repository. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge whatever is useful. There is nothing inherently wrong with providing pages about specific editions of a work... but they have to be notable and present reliable sources. gren グレン` —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solveig Sandnes

Nonnotable singer; no best-selling albums, and no references (Myspace doesn't count). The original author (see page history) has not made any other edits. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delte self-promotion, no independent source material. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If it can be verified that her single went to #1 in Japan she should meet WP:MUSIC!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like HisSpaceResearch, I agree that the WP:MUSIC guideline of notability will be met if it can be shown in a significant, reliable resource that the song Marie hit #1 in Japan. However, I spent some time searching on Google, and I couldn't come up with anything except a couple insignificant mentions. Part of the problem is that any site that looks promising is in Japanese. Until this fact can be proven... Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tanthalas39's research showing unmet WP:MUSIC. Should credible sources appear for that claim the article may always be recreated. --Dhartung | Talk 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The SR P3 (a Swedish national radio network) placed several songs by her on its playlist in 1999: see here. The artist thus meets WP:MUSIC#11. I also see there that the singles are on Mega Records; if the albums were too (as is likely) then she meets #5 as well. Rigadoun (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that claim to the article and #5 is confirmed as well (though they are apparently on two different labels). Don't know about the #1 claim, though. Rigadoun (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous Afd here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solveig sadnes Precious Roy (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. This action is to be taken by interested editors and is not taken by the closing admin, due to lack of familiarity with the subject, and multiple target articles were suggested in the debate.

George (bus service)

Contested PROD. There is nothing notable about a bus route - even if it is called George. There are no references provided to show that this bus route is notable. Further such articles are difficult to accurately maintain and thus their usefulness must be questioned. Gillyweed (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE into Metrobus (Washington, D.C.): This is a route assigned to them under contract, but which they do not control. Also, notify the creator of the article...which is not myself. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per AEMoreira042281. Mh29255 (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Orange Line (Washington Metro) (note this is a different suggestion than that made by AEMoreira042281). While the picture makes this look spiffy, I cringe at the thought of maintaining articles for every bus route in the country (and world!). This bus only goes between two stops on the Orange Line; I think this is an obvious merge. Tanthalas39 (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the consensus so far seems to be to merge, and if a merge is to happen, then it needs to go to Metrobus (Washington, D.C.). Merging with Orange Line would indicate that it has something to do with the rail system, but it doesn't have to do with the rail system at all. It's similar to Ride-On Route 31, which runs between Glenmont and Wheaton, but is the local route. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Poorly written, but not an ad. The Transhumanist 04:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC) (non admin closure; endorsed by Kubigula (talk)).[reply]

IBM Rome Software Lab

Procedural nomination; contested CSD. Tagged as CSD for advertising. Keilana^talk_(recall) 23:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep It is poorly written, by someone with too much marketing experience, but it isn't *that* overly ad-wise. It claims notability clearly within the article as the largest software lab. It needs verification by reliable sources, but if the claims are true, then it is notable. The spammy stuff (one or two lines is all) can be deleted easily. Pharmboy (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This laboratory has been covered enough by unrelated sources to show clear notability (Techrepublic, ZDNet, FastCompany, etc.) Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lab may be mentioned in article about Tivoli, there's no need to cover every current and historic IBM organization. Notable exceptions, like the groups working on bleeding edge hardware technologies or the once massive lab in Boca Raton are not reason to duplicate IBM corporate structure over here. Having 500 people it may not be the "largest software development company in Italy", consulting companies and large manufacturers may have large centers (all depends how "software development" is defined). Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tivoli Software is a very important brand of the IBM Software Group, one of the major divisions of IBM and the IBM Software Laboratory in Rome is IBM’s largest Tivoli development location outside the USA. For sure, this lab represents one of the most important and largest software development laboratory in Italy (see for instance, EMEA Best Student Recognition Event, etc.).--Romelab (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless proper refs are placed in the article showing multiple independent evidence of notability. I was planning to vote keep but can only get 3-GHits, and 2 are from WikiPedia. Also I can't help wondering whether User:Romelab should declare an interest :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NBeale (talk • contribs) 12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a really major company, the main divisions like this are notable. DGG (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of landfills in Hong Kong

I'm just not sure this page is necessary. We do not have lists of landfills in any other locations (although we have categories for landfills, US landfills, and UK landfills) and none of the individual landfills here seem to be notable. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 22:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that there are categories for landfills is an indicator that it's not considered a mundane topic-- nor should it be. For those who think that the topic is "boring" Lists of landfills should be thought of as "lists of places that house the tons and tons of garbage we dispose of every day". It doesn't all disappear into thin air. In the case of densely populated, tiny Hong Kong, the problem takes on special significance. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it's mundane. What I am saying is that it seems strange that we should single out Hong Kong when we don't have such a list for any other location.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one is making any claims that this is a boring topic, it's just not necessary. Perhaps if there were articles on each and every landfill in Hong Kong (which I think would be yet another issue), but the items on the list, as HisSpaceResearch notes, just go to short stub articles regarding the city or location of each one. I can't find how this violates WP:LIST, but it surely isn't notable. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. If we listed every landfill on the planet we could account for a lot of garbage, but to what purpose? A large apartment building houses a great number of people who collectively make an enormous impact on their community, but I don't think we'd want a list of every apartment building in Hong Kong (There isn't such a list is there?). Maybe notable landfills, such as the one in Centralia, Pennsylvania that caught fire and caused the town to be abandoned, would make an interesting resource.--Jeff Johnston (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful as list because the landfills are unlikely to have enough information for separate articles (and this has date and size information too). I don't know why there aren't similar lists for other places, but I think there should be; see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Compared to (say) apartment buildings, there aren't so many so as to make it unwieldy; many more people contribute to a landfill than live in an apartment building. It's a pity there's no reference but there's probably information that could be found in official documents. I don't see how it violates WP:LIST either, could you cite the part you're referring to? Rigadoun (talk) 05:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone has said that it violates WP:LIST so there's nothing to cite. So far all the delete arguments have been based on notability. There are about 10,000 landfill sites in Canada, which would make for an enormous list, but would it be notable as a list? The number of landfills, the volume of garbage, the environmental impact, etc are all (arguably) notable and would make for an interesting entry, but I would still argue that the list in of itself is not notable. --Jeff Johnston (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His Space Research above wrote "And also none of the items on this list appear to have any stand-alone notability, failing WP:LIST," and I didn't understand what he meant by that. Rigadoun (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk

_contribs 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable topic in my view, and useful for anyone studying the subject. Our lack of similar articles is not a reason for deletion; I would welcome the writing of more. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a category would not serve the same purpose, because this incorporates other helpful information about the landfills in table form. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. This article is a directory listing of non-notable landfills. As inappropriate as a list of non-notable apartment buildings, gas stations, or restaurants in Hong Kong. No references to show that the whole collection of landfills in Hong Kong is notable. If the ultimate disposal of refuse is a problem for Hong Kong, that (referenced) fact could be mentioned in the article on the place. A listing of locations does not convey that information. Another issue, if the article is ultimately kept: Lacking references, there is no assurance that the list has not had a few hoax landfills added, or that landfills have not been omitted. Facts in an article must be verifiable and not based on the personal knowledge of the editor, or on some source he did not see fit to cite. Edison (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR, mostly. Landfills are generally not important individually, and cat's would serve the same purpose. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is no more or less important than landfills in any other jurisdiction, but not very notable and definitely not sexy. I believe that this should be part of a larger article Waste management in Hong Kong. However, not much appears to be written about the subject of landfills in Hong Kong. Most tends to be frm government sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Close. Some of these may be deletion candidates (though per previous practice, they should be redirected to school district pages), others should be tagged for merge, or may be notable. No unilateral decision can be made in a bundled AfD such as this. Editors should be WP:BOLD in making decisions on individual articles. Controversial articles should be brought back to AfD individually.BLACKKITE 00:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faxon Montessori

Non-notable primary school -- should be merged with school district page. Dougie WII (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also primary schools from the same school district:

-- Dougie WII (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Kansas City, Missouri School District. Dougie WII, if you think that an article should be merged, you can propose a merger, rather than bringing the article to AfD. Bláthnaid 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, I would only use AfD if somebody reverted a redirected article. I placed hundreds of merge school tags to let the creators of such articles know that they should stop creating individual pages for every school in the world. Also, I hoped that people would just merge away. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment author deleted PROD tag on first article that suggested merger. -- Dougie WII (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, they'll do that, but if the information survives on a district page they'll usually not care that the article is gone. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Primary schools shouldn't be notable on their own. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Central Middle School (Kansas City). First junior high in its area, first million dollar school, notable architecture and plenty of sources here. Looking into the others. TerriersFan (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? It's not the first million dollar school ever (only in Kansas City), and it's not even a million dollar school, the article's author says it cost around $900,000. I don't see how that makes it notable. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are enough sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nominator has confused deleting with merging. Use {{Merge}} instead of {{Prod}} in future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I haven't confused anything. All of these schools are already mentioned there so these should be deleted and redirected. -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, I'm confused. You said, in nominating, "should be merged with school district page" and in reply to AnteaterZot, "author deleted PROD tag on first article that suggested merger". Secondly, it is clear that these articles have not yet been merged to the district article. Further, if you desire to redirect them, there is no need to delete first and, I would argue, undesirable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the process then for removing these primary schools? In the past I AfD or prod them and they were deleted or sometimes redirected/merged by whomever closed the AfD. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a process to redirect, just replace the page with #redirect target page. redirecting or merging is not the same as deletion; the prod tag was removed probably because it (as prod tags inherently do) proposed deletion. —Random832 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have reopened this AfD that was closed as redirect by the nominator out of process. There was no consensus for this action and and I, for one, don't agree with a merge or redirect for at least one of these schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested way forward - one way out of this would be for the nominator to withdraw the nomination then the AfD can be closed as Speedy Keep. After that the nominator can merge tag the pages if he wishes (not a unilateral redirect) and we can discuss the proposed merges. TerriersFan (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'd rather just let the AfD go to completion and let whatever happens happen. I really don't care what happens to these articles, if people want to keep them fine -- I'd rather spend my time here working other articles. I thought I was being helpful by nominating them since it seemed the consensus was already that only high schools were notable and elementary and middle schools are not. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - most (but not all) editors regard high schools as notable and they are nearly always kept at AfD. All editors regard elementary/middle schools as having no inherent notability consequently the proposed criteria at WP:SCL which, if passed, they would have to meet, whilst at present they have to meet WP:N. However, they deserve individual consideration. At the moment I am looking into the notability of these nominated schools. It may be that they finish up being merged but they deserve a look for sources first. HTH. TerriersFan (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The type of articles you mentioned as meeting WP:N for Central Middle School (Kansas City) are extremely minimal, just saying there was a fight there, some students are tardy or skipping school there, it was the first day of school there today, etc. If these make a school notable than every school in the world should be notable by default then. -- Dougie WII (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, that misrepresents the sources. There are more sources, on a wide range of issues, than I have seen for many middle schools. Sadly, they are mostly behind paywalls and I'm not prepared to mortgage the house by paying to see them all :-) Having said that it is certainly the first middle school in its area is notable and (though I can't source definitively the first) possibly the first middle school in the US is notable. Most elementary/middle schools have far fewer sources so no need to worry on that score :-) TerriersFan (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that in the greater Kansas City area, most of the usual news outlets do not provide free access to archives older than 5 or 10 days. There is a big business in this region that resells access to this type of local archived news content. The fact that the sources are currently not cited is not equivalent to an argument against notability; on the contrary: the fact that it is asserted that they exist, and normal websearches show numerous hits for docs behind paywalls, indicates that it is notable, and that we hope somebody can provide the references from a stack of newspapers in their mom's basement or whatever. This will never happen if the articles are deleted. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as default, and nominator merge-tag or list separately... this cluster nom of schools is confusing as a combined nomination, and some clearly are notable. Concensus will be impossible with everyone differently saying delete these, merge those, keep these... JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. While some of these should be ultimately be merged, none of them need to be deleted and the merge discussions can take place separately on the respective article talk pages. RFerreira (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. NBeale (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for Central Middle School (Kansas City, Missouri) there certainly is a claim of notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the middle schools for now as possibly notable; Delete the primary school. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calcium Lime Rust

I removed the PROD tag from this article as I am contesting the proposed deletion. The prod was added by User:Peasantwarrior, and the reason given was "Not notable / important. Unreferenced (only reference is products web-page). Also, one section falls under Wikipedia:NOT#HOWTO. Partially fails WP:NPOV." CastAStone /^/(talk) 07:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable product along the lines of drano, although desparately needing cleanup.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 07:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the talk page: "While products are not exempt from being culturally significant, I sincerely doubt there's any potential with this one". Nobody's been murdered by CLR like with Drano. They don't compare. This is just one of hundreds of thousands of products that doesn't distinguish itself in any important way TheBilly (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, you're saying that only products used in crimes become notable? I thought they only needed to be written about, silly me. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man there, but I was saying....well, I was saying what I said. Please don't put made up words in my mouth TheBilly (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are your words. Either explain how the use of a product in a crime is necessary to notability, or kindly excise them.--Dhartung | Talk 22:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TheBilly. Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source. I have a DIY magazine that recommends this in its Q&A section for one thing or another about every four months. --Dhartung | Talk 08:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable product, if only for their incredibly corny ads on Australian TV they used to show a decade or so again. Needs to be copyedited to get rid of the promotional tone though. Lankiveil (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep ~~Delete~~ - ~~Little more than an advertisement, and as such is in desperate need of deletion.~~ Well, I tidied up the article a little, removed the ad-like tone and removed the link to the manufacturers' web-site. Where it's notable enough to remain, however, is a different matter entirely... Alloranleon (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheBilly, WP:NOTE, WP:ADVERT and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It reads too much like an advertisement..."It removes calcium, lime and rust quickly and easily, usually within a few minutes."--English836 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article no longer sounds like an advertisement, but needs a lot more work. Mh29255 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable off brand product. Tavix (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. No non-trivial coverage cited. About as notable as Scot Young Research.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 02:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article as rewritten is not excessively promotional, and numerous newspaper articles talk about it,per the Google news archive search [1], so there is some potential for referencing and expansion. That said, some of the articles are doubtless (even in Forbes) in response to the company's press releases (though the same could be said about a great many references) and basically say what the product should and should not be used for. If the article described the product based on its chemical content, from Material Data Safety Sheets, and its history and market share, from the busines press, it would be a vast improvement. As for it being "off brand" I disagree. In its niche it is a major product, widely sold in stores in my area. Edison (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as non-notable album. May be re-created if ever released and covered by third-party reliable sources. Pastordavid (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied (album)

Unreleased album by Ashley Monroe, fails WP:V. I can't find any sources to verify the track listing here -- All Music Guide at least verifies the album's presence (see here) but does not provide a cover or track listing. This album is probably not going to be released, either, seeing as she's no longer listed in her label's roster of artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverifiable. Can be recreated easily enough if it ever resurfaces as a legit release. Lankiveil (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep What is the point of deleting this album? When it gets released, this article will just be recreated. So leave it.

Vala M (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's been dropped from her label, so there's almost no chance that it'll be released now. Also, there are no sources in sight. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't meant to be a crystal ball. If and when the album is either released or becomes an unreleased legend similar to SMiLE, then that's the time for an article - not before. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this article a chance since back in January '07, when "I Don't Want To" peaked on the charts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete album will probably never be released. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as for Ain't That Life. Cerebellum (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MiracleMat (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Debate closed as moot. Article has been redirected to Characters and groups in Bionicle.

Rahaga/Toa Hagah

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional characters with no notability outside of the Bionocle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lankiveil. -- Redfarmer (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Toa of Gravity January 8, 2008

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

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

The result was No consensus --JForget 23:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toa

Original research plot summary about non-notable characters. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional race/group with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The sidebar is broken. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is the first, not second, nomination, and have restricted the sidebar to show only related AfDs. –Pomte 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this referenced and well-organized article. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no reliable sources, and is hardly more than a plot summary. The complaint tags currently on the article (articleissues, self-published and primarysources) seem well-justified. If anyone has a plan for fixing the article that would correct the tagged issues, now would be a good time to offer it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I"m the one who added the tags normally I would give more time before taking things to AFD, but it quickly became apparent that people were just going to be constantly removing tags and ignoring them. Ridernyc (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:V, WP:NOT#PLOT and there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I added a Development section and cited The Washington Post. These are notable. I've also cited Frank Provo and Brett Todd of GameSpot. --Pixelface (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

these section would great in the Bioncle article covering the entire franchise, there no reason for every aspect of bioncle to have it's own page, particularly when you look at the main article and the massive work it needs. Ridernyc (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on recently added sources. However, this needs a massive trimming as well. As for the remaining related articles, redirect them here with a (very small) relevant merge of apprpriate material. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the sources added talk about the entire franchise and only mention the character in passing. There are not articles about the characters. Have you looked at the main bionicle page if you trim the cruft from you would have a stub all this should be rewritten there. Ridernyc (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to Brotherhood of Makuta (which also needs major attention). What little encyclopedic information there is can be merged to that article. There is little reason for this article, with no reliable primary sources, and failing WP:OR and WP:NOT#PLOT, to exist separately. BLACKKITE 01:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta (Phantoka)

Original research plot summary about a non-notable character. No real world context and only sources are someones blog. Ridernyc (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fictional group with no notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This valuable information can be found no where else on Wikipedia.Swirlex (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Move Deletion is not the only option. This article would fit in the Bionicle Wiki.--EmeraldWithin (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per EmeraldWithin. It appears to be notable, although most of the refs are blogs. Has any attempt been made to fix the tagged problems? Bearian (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanyō

No sources are given to confirm the article's discription. Heavily violating WP:NOR. Also this notation is possibly non-notable. Neko jarashi (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not appear to be a notable term with wide usage. Lankiveil (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral. May violate OR, but the concept seems notable...there are lots of interwiki links (the articles are similar in content to this one, and also unsourced), and a Google search for "hanyo Japan demon" turns up a number of uses. Since there are a number of examples, it seems to have real-world notability. But...it definitely needs a reference to confirm it all, and I couldn't find one on a quick search. Rigadoun (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Rigadoun (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure original research and personal opinion from what I can tell. It seems to be a completely unsourced personal essay. Some of the stuff there is pure speculation and personal opinion. For example, Naraku is not a hanyo and I don't recall any character in the anime every calling him such.Collectonian (talk) 07:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - given the widespread use of these types of characters in several anime and manga, I'm inclined to think that some commentary could be found, although this could simply be wishful thinking. However, as it stands, the article is a long jumble of original synthesis that fails WP:FICT. Oh, and to the above, Naraku is a hanyō. I can remember instances of it being discussed in the manga, but not in the anime though. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Cool. I wouldn't have though he'd considered once since he isn't really born from a human/demon but born of being a monster of a human who became a demon, or something like that. I never read the manga, though, so would be interesting to read those discussions :) Collectonian (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given how often these characters appear in anime and manga, I'd also be very surprised if no commentary or sources can be found. The number of other language wikipedias that have articles on this is also very suggestive. Is there any information in the Japanese wikipedia article that can be used to support this one? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Redirect to Tengu seeing that similarities are almost uncanny. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The existence of a Japanese term for this archetype does not exemplify any kind of uniqueness. Supernatural characters are also found in other media. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza Isabela

Another non-notable mall in Puerto Rico; searches for reliable sources turned up nothing to assert notability. (Most hits were for an unrelated Plaza Isabela in Bolivia.) Claims to be the "third largest and busiest" in the region, which is not only unsourced but also PoV. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable mall as you say. Looks like someone doesn't like Mall articles on Wikipedia? Tavix (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just don't like unsourced articles on non-notable subjects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but allow creation without prejudice of a new article about the popular plaza in Madrid. I've no problem with deleting this for non-notability; I'm simply concerned that, since there is a square of the same name in Madrid, and it is quite notable, someone writing an article on the Madrid location may have a problem in the future. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article asserts notability: "third largest shopping center..." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aguadilla Mall

Non-notable mall in Puerto Rico; a search for reliable sources found none in English or Spanish (keep in mind I'm fairly fluent in Spanish). Claims to be the only mall in its region, but such claims can't be verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH. Phyesalis (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search turned up nothing notable. Caveat: I do not speak or read Spanish beyond elementary terms. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Landing Mall

Non-notable mall in KCMO. A search for online sources turned up nothing but blogs and directory listings -- no reliable sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no sources and no notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator. Malinaccier (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep regional shopping centres are generally notable, and this one appears to be significant in the history of KCMO shopping centres. Article needs to be expanded though, and more sources have to be added. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete JERRY ^talk _contribs 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuut-Riit

There is no assertion of notability through reliable sources, and as such its just an in-universe plot repetition of various plot points from the source article. Therefore, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Ah yes, the careful Kzinti Admiral. AnteaterZot (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fictional character with no notability in the wider world. Fails WP:FICTION. Lankiveil (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Unless notability can be proven by sources, per the guidelines of WP:FICT this should be merged into Man-Kzin Wars#Recurring characters —Quasirandom (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Blueanode (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. The page that Le Grand mentions is just an essay and isn't a requirement to follow when editing. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I checked, there are no online sources that could be used to save this article. In light of the fact that there is a place to merge, it should be merged there. AnteaterZot (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Gavin Collins (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:V and WP:NOT#PLOT. There are no reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this stock character outside of the Man-Kzin Wars franchise. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On what basis do you claim this is a stock character? Edward321 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world significance is established or even suggested for this character, & it therefore fails our notability requirements for fictional topics. Eusebeus (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet General Orders

This article establishes no notability, has no referencing per WP:RS, and is just plot repetition from the various episodes of Star Trek where the General Orders are used. As they are already mentioned where appropriate, this duplicates that and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it is a relativly significant part of the show. With a quick google search I found quite a few pages the enumerate and discuss the starfleet general orders.[2][3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewedge (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fan sites, and do not count toward the notability and referencing I am referring to, see WP:FICTION and WP:RS. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only one of these with even a breath of notability in the real world is the Prime Directive, which has its own article. The rest of this is just trek-cruft. Take it to Memory Alpha if need be. Lankiveil (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. A careful perusal of Google Books and Google Scholar reveals nothing substantive about anything but the Prime Directive. No, not even ISBN 0966808029 (Star Trek Visions of Law and Justice). Other than that, all we have is quotes from the show(s) and plot summary, and that fails WP:FICT hard. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect/merge. This article supplements the General order article. Reworking this material is not a matter of deletion but of content editing. I have added a citation to indicate how the article might be improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above. This is, in fact, a relatively INsignificant part of the show, as the term "General Orders" is only as such very rarely mentioned. A hardcore enough Trekkie to want to read these will already know about Memory Alpha. RGTraynor 09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I am a huge Star Trek fan (although I admit that I don't really like TOS and love ENT), but the only ones on that that I would consider notable are the Prime Directive and the Omega Directive (Prime much moreso than Omega though). TJ Spyke 09:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sorry, but I must agree on this matter. I was a contributor to this article. But seriousely -- this is an in universe article. Star Trek's notability is clear cut. But this is a general reference encyclolpedia. An article about Star Trek can be justified; but breaking it down to sub-articles such as this is not justifiable here. There is a Star Trek related Wiki site where material like this belongs. But it does not belong in a general reference work. -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

Comment Per the most fundamental statement of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias.... The existence of secondary sources such as Memory Alpha supports inclusion rather than being a reason to delete as it is evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha, being a wiki, is not considered a reliable source. See WP:SPS. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant because the issue in this little thread is notability rather than verifiability. If the Memory Alpha project considers the subject worthy of inclusion then this is evidence of notability because, obviously, they have noted it. It's not a major reason to keep but the existence of Memory Alpha is no reason at all for deletion, as User:Jason Palpatine asserts. If all content were moved to some specialised place where it supposedly belongs then we would be left with nothing. Wikipedia is a superset of all the topics which secondary sources have found notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Spyke on this. Memory Alpha already covers this and I have just merged some non-canon info from here into Memory Beta. Maybe delete then redirect to Law in Star Trek to prevent re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Prime Directive. This is a reasonable search term (and redirects hardly take up any space), and the content of this article would provide a nice supplement to the material in the Prime Directive entry, particularly as many of the directives as mentioned in episodes/films are discussed in either an implied or explicit relation to the Prime Directive. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a search term it would still find various articles, from where a reader could click on a link to Memory Alpha, and so read it there. I've just added an external link in Law in Star Trek to the Memory Alpha page on Starfleet General Orders and Regulations, which provides fuller info and context. There are only 3 incoming links from articles on episodes/races, and each of these three fully explains the relevant Order in the article, so the link adds little or nothing. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps it might be smarter to merge/redirect Prime Directive to this instead? This is more of a parent article. GlassCobra 20:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge all; there is no doubt whatsoever that Kim Possible is a very notable television series; and that some of the characters listed in this AfD are of significant importance to that series. However, importance is not notability and the flaw that none of those articles are supported by reliable sources is fatal: any information in them is necessarily taken from primary sources and therefore original synthesis. That is the case even for the more important characters.

The vast number of characters involved, however, would almost certainly make the main article unwieldy so I will redirect all of those articles to the (existing) List of Kim Possible Characters, into which relevant contents can then be merged (please remember to keep WP:NOT#PLOT in mind and eschew plot summaries). — Coren ^(talk) 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wade Load

Topic of the article is not notable, there is no significant coverage by reliable secondary source, in fact there are no secondary sources whatsoever and it seems unlikely that any will be found. The article is written from an in universe perspective and due to the lack of available sources it would be impossible to correct this without masses of original research, which the article is already rife with. The character in question is not notable in the real world and should not be the topic of an article. To sum up, policy (WP:V) states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - there are no reliable third party sources given in the article and I find it very unlikely that any wil be found.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Rufus (Kim Possible)

Monique (Kim Possible)

Señor Senior, Sr. and Señor Senior, Jr.

Guest9999 (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:FICT. ~ twsX · ^T_C · Typo-Warning! ~ 02:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree the articles should be deleted (which is why I nominated them), I'd like to point out that WP:FICT is currently a disputed guideline. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep at least the major characters (i.e., Shego, Drakken, Monique, possibly Rufus) and tag for improvement instead; keep The Stoppables as appropriate subpage of Minor family members in Kim Possible for formatting/size reasons; merge the Possible family articles into a similar subarticle; merge the others into the appropriate list-of-characters articles. WP:FICT specifies that deletion is a last-resort if no other options are viable. Also recommend that Guest9999 assist by transwiki-ing the articles to the Kim Possible Wikia before any other action is taken. Rdfox 76 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I not wish to edit the Kim Possible Wikia as I do not know the nature of the advertising on the site and my contributions could lead to more people being exposed to said advertising. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Keep the articles of Shego and Drakken, because they ARE main characters of the show series and, along with the two protagonists (Kim and Ron), are the more popular characters. The rest of the articles should probably be merge as some "List of Characters" kind of article. In fact, I'm willing to start working on that, but still, Drakken are Shego are notable enough characters like to earn their articles. In the same vein, check that Shego's article got to be a Good Article.--Alexlayer (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all but the most notable articles into a "List of" article -- per the part of WP:FICT that is not being disputed, which is that deletion is the last resort. Exactly which are the most notable, I leave to those who know the show better than I, but the fact that one of these is GA class is indicative that that one should survive, and indeed shouldn't have been brought here. (That I could recognize Kim, Ron, Drakken, and Shego long before I ever watched a show suggests that those are likely ones to keep, but I am not reliable, only a source.) All the issues beyhond notability mentioned by the nominator are cleanup issues, not causes for deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, looking at the good article criteria there is no mention of notability or other inclusion criteria (such as [[WP:NOT#INFO). Therefore I don't think that the article having GA status and the topic of the article not being notable are necessarily mutualy exclusive. [[Guest9999 (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Not explicitly, no, but notability is implied by the verifiability clause -- and given the number of people who have to look at and agree the article is good, it's generally a good assumption that someone would have raised a notability flag if it really was an issue. —Quasirandom (talk) 05:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that for any fictional character, however obscure, information can easily be verified using the source material. [[Guest9999 (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Wade Load is hardly an obscure character. In fact he's one of the four main characters. Tahj Mowry, the actor responsible for his voice is always listed fourth in the credits, behing Nancy Cartwright(Rufus), Will Friedle(Ron Stoppable), and finally Christy Carlson Romano(the eponymous main character herself). ----DanTD (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most, if not all, especially the main characters. This is yet another sabotage mission under the guise of imaginary lack of reliable sources, and is the kind of crap that has to be stopped ----DanTD (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all either into the article on the television programme, or if necessary into a breakout "List of characters from Kim Possible" style article. Having seperate articles for each non-notable character that fails WP:FICT is just cruftery. Lankiveil (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge to List of characters from Kim Possible. This really should be standard practice for any but central characters who appear in every episode (unless they can pass WP:N separately), because we are not the Kim Possible wikia. If there's material to be saved, GFDL it over there. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the articles on the two main villains and maybe the pet, and Delete or Merge into a single page the rest of them. I generally dislike mass nominations like these, though. As someone pointed out, at least one of these articles is a GA. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dr. Drakken and Shego, merge the rest. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect non-main characters to List of Kim Possible characters (that naming format appears to have a slight edge in usage and is also shorter). I know nothing about the series so have no idea which are main and non-main. Otto4711 (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all non-major characters to List of Kim Possible characters, clearly. AfD is not a replacement for foresight and being bold. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into one article. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is one of the main characters in a multi-season show that has had two movies as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge more minor characters depending on how space pans out. 01:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
- Speaking of poor knowledge of what's going on...are you aware that this nomination is for multiple articles?--UsaSatsui (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I didn't have time to write individual entries. - perfectblue (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the major characters, such as Shego, Drakken, and maybe Rufus, merge the more minor characters into subarticles. Anya Prynn (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a list of characters article absent the ability to demonstrate real-world notability, which is the criteria we use for fictional characters. The ongoing debate at WP:FICT acknowledges the importance of that standard & these all fail it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of characters Will ^(talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these characters have independant notability. As such, they should all be redirected to (with the exception of Yori) a List of article and merged. (I find it funny that List of Kim Possible Characters was redirected in February) I might not be totally oppossed to keeping the Shego article though, and perhaps the Rufus one. I (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as these articles have no reliable secondary sources and so fail WP:FICT, as they have no notability outside of Kim Possible series. Merger is not appropriate as the articles content is possibly the worst example of WP:NOT#PLOT I have ever seen; reading these articles is like watching the series with through the medium of surtitles. These articles are begging to be deleted and transwikied to an appropriate fansite. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 68.189.67.167 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)— 68.189.67.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Multiple

While still a guiding policy in Wikipedia editing, WP:V was not written with popular culture in mind. It requires levels of proof that most elements in pop-culture struggle too meet, especially since WP:RS advices against most of the third party sources that would otherwise be used. There are plenty of sources out there to verify the notability of these characters, but they are in magazines, TV guides, and on stage at fan conventions. Sources which Wikipedia policies/guidelines aimed primarily at academic subjects discourage strongly. What we have here is a classic case of some well written (and some not so well written) entries that meet with the spirit of Wikipedia being put up for Afd because they don't meet the exact letter of the law.

In this instance I would ask that the administrators presiding over this case put spirit above policy. At least in some cases. For example, the characters Shego, Bonnie Rockwaller and Doctor Drakken are all fully sourced using franchise sources. Every significant statement made is backed up by details of an episode which can be used to confirm them. Shego, Bonnie Rockwaller and Doctor Drakken are all notable characters in a notable franchise. They survived for 4 seasons and 2 movies. Which isn't bad since the show was canceled after finishing it's third season, but was relaunched after fans campaigned for it's return.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about the free flow of knowledge, not stiff unbending guidelines. Deleting, or even merging Shego, Bonnie Rockwaller and Doctor Drakken would be a serious step back for Wikipedia. It would effectively be saying that something isn't important unless it is academically important. Shego, Bonnie Rockwaller and Doctor Drakken are all highly notable because they form one half of the core of the Kim Possible franchise. Without them the franchise would not exist. They are well sources using appropriate sources for a children cartoon and the statements made in them are all justified by linking them to the episodes that highlight what is being discussed. I believe that this is a clear case when Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be brought into play. WP:V and WP:RS in this case are just too restrictive on the grounds that no matter how notable a children's cartoon is you will pretty much never get any third party sources other than reviews on fan/viewer websites and the occasional magazine article in the back of a TV guide. WP:V and WP:RS are not designed to deal with such a situation. In fact applying them would pretty much wipe out all children's TV related entries other than a few contentious or historical ones.

Shego - Strong Keep. Shego is a primary villain who has appeared in 4 series, 2 movies, multiple video games, and a cinemanga comic. She plays a significant role in a notable franchise and is often portrayed as the villainous counterpart of the hero. Her notability is significantly strengthened by the fact that her popularity amongst fans directly influenced the direction of the show, with the franchise's production team writing the finale script so that she could come out of the series on top, rather than defeated.

Rufus (Kim Possible) - Merge to create a Team Possible page. Notable as a recurring character and a primary hero. Had several episodes devoted to him.
Monique (Kim Possible) - Merge to create a Team Possible page. Notable as a primary hero and the first new hero to be added to the franchise.
Doctor Drakken - Strong Keep - See Shego. A notable recurring primary villain. commonly used as an enabling character. Fan affection for this character influenced the final script for the franchise finale.
Monkey Fist - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Duff Killigan - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Señor Senior, Sr. and Señor Senior, Jr. - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Professor Dementor - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
DNAmy - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Killer Bebes - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Camille Leon - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
Motor Ed - Merge into Minor_villains_in_Kim_Possible
James Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
Ann Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
Jim and Tim Possible - Merge into Possible Family (Kim Possible) or something similar
Steve Barkin Keep A recurring character often used as an enabling character or a source of conflict within the franchise
Bonnie Rockwaller Strong Keep See Shego. A Primary villain and enabling character specifically introduced as an adversary and conflict source for the lead role. The mirror image of Kim Possible and also a mcguffen character.
Yori (Kim Possible) - Merge into appropriate page

The Stoppables Keep this page already deals with multiple characters.

perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Guest9999's analysis is spot on. I doubt any secondary sources exist for any of these characters and most of the content of the articles either breaks WP:NOT#PLOT or WP:OR. Verifiability is also a sginificant problem. Doctorfluffy (talk)

A great any secondary sources do exist, but most are often ruled out under WP:RS because they are sources from TV guides and non-professional websites. Wikipedia regs are mostly written to deal with academic issues, not popular culture. Requiring a children's cartoon to have the same level of proof as a scientific paper is asking too much. As they stand, WP:V and WP:RS are inappropriately restrictive for the topic. This has been specifically allowed for under Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. - perfectblue (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these articles are ridiculous. NBeale (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all info to existing subsections of Kim Possible#Characters, period. I understand the difficulty in sourcing fictional characters, but, that said, we absolutely do not need a separate article for every character of a series, nor do we need a list. Anyone looking for the information will find it in the main article. --MCB (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Request to whosoever presides on this Afd

The character listed above vary CONSIDERABLY in importance and notability.

Specifically, that the characters Doctor Drakken, Shego and Bonnie Rockwaller are considerably more notable within the franchise than all of the other characters due to the size of the roles that they play within the franchise, their importance to the franchise's scripts, and their number of appearances.

When reaching a conclusion could those preceding in this consider ruling separately on different characters, rather than in bulk.

perfectblue (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is distinct from importance (in a television series or otherwise), importance is subjective whereas, notability (as defined by WP:NN) requires objective evidence. [[Guest9999 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Notability is a guideline, if it is inappropriate it can be ignored. In this case a number of characters are core characters of a notable franchise. Their notability is demonstrated by their multiple appearances across multiple media over a sustained time frame. These are sustained primary characters. Notabiliy was not written to deal with such eventualities, and is flexible. I say, flex it. - perfectblue (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the characters are important to a notable series it is appropriate to have information on them included in the article for the series. It is not appropriate to have articles on topics which are not notable in their own right, notability is not inherited (links to essay). The article for the series (Kim Possible) is not long (~17Kb) and additional information on the characters could easily be included if it is deemed appropriate. [[Guest9999 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (and salt). jj137 ^♠ 02:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cars 2

procedural nomination — version brought to AFD: This was previously deleted via AFD and has risen from the grave a couple of times, only to be staked via Speedy. This time, I found the article PROD-nominated and did not feel a speedy was appropriate (not close enough to AFD-deleted version for WP:CSD#G4); however, I would like to see this article Deleted and Salted so that it may not rise again until the movie actually gets going (if ever). As the PROD nominator put it, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- and there's really nothing in this article anyway." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- If I had bothered to look for previous AFD nominations (sorry about that), I would have done this myself. It's at best based on a maybe rumor about a possible project that might get started if things go just right. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 100% original research. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete It is a stub about a movie that "might" come out in four years. make it again when more info comes out. KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Future films department of WikiProject Films has also been notified of this ongoing discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no official word, nothing on IMDB, nothing from Pixar. Classic case of WP:CRYSTAL. All i've found is a pretty amusing article on the BBC about an illegal street vendor selling "Cars" as "Cars 2" the day "Cars" came out in theaters. Due to the amount of recreations of this article i suggest a little salt on this article. Doc Strange (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete obviously OR with no potential for verification. Pharmboy (talk) 02:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per OR/Crystal Ball Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 04:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NFF or WP:NOT#CRYSTAL; SALT as appropriate. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article begins with "Not much is known", which should be a good indication that you're not going to be able to get the reliable sources that you need. Lankiveil (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I love it when the article shoots itself in the foot like this one does. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 04:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article itself. "Not much is known about the possible sequel to the box office hit." There ya go. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per BALL, and some salt would be nice too. DodgerOfZion (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you do know that Wikipedia:Give an article a chance is an essay and not a policy or a guideline? Doc Strange (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it makes a good argument and is a pleasant read. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the essay is that many articles have the potential to be expanded into noteworthy encyclopedic articles with citations and everything given time. It doesn't matter since that is NOT THE CASE here. This is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing can be added to this article that is verifiable about a sequel. No studio announcements, no nothing.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear case of crystal balling. If coverage of such a sequel in development does arise, it should belong on the first film article before establishing its own article upon entry of production, per WP:NFF. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Surely adding it to the bottom of the cars(film) Article would be the best idea...Wouldnt it? 78.148.109.75 (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge +1000 internets to you, sir IP User! DesuXDesu (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HaHa sorry I didnt realise i wasnt logged in Curttrfc (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's unsourced so it cannot be merged. --neonwhite user page talk 02:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this information were to be merged, it would just server the purpose of adding original research and speculation to the destination article. Merging is only for good information that for some reason or another does not quite qualify for its own article. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Stanley‎

AfDs for this article:

Local child entertainer in local shows, non-notable — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AFD here

Delete as nom. Note that the article was first begun by its subject, raising some WP:AUTO concerns. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did some searching for her 'albums' and didn't find anything that was a reliable source, telling me someone is stamping CDs out in the basement. Some of the links are sites ripping off Wikipedia and even include the AFD statement, which I personally found hilarious. Not notable, fails wp:band. Pharmboy (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per band and possible COI Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C)04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Website [5] doesn't seem to work with error message "The machine couldn't find your page". Poss fake sources to fake notability. Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) 04:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make silly speculation. Maybe you're new to the net, and didn't know sites going down is pretty common. Lots of notable people have down or defunc sites (I'm NOT suggesting she's notable though). There's no reason to think anything is "faked". Now, in the case of this article, there's good reason for deletion (lacks required independent coverage per WP:N). And I now support deletion (I previously supported retention). Anyway, when dealing with a living person (especially a child) who's not famous, we should be especially carefull of what we say (think first, then write, works good). Nobody is contesting the deletion this time, so I'm not sure why people wish to defame somebody they know nothing about. Admins, I suggest a courtesy blanking of this and the previous AFD per WP:LIVING upon close. So delete and move on (don't pile on) --Rob (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the fact she's described as a "finalist" and not a "winner" indicates that she is just another failed game show contestant. Lankiveil (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Also note: the imdb bio on Mariah Stanley was written by Mariah Stanley. (Something to note on the afd - see in the edit summary of her page, a comment that imdb is ok for EL.) — Rlevse • Talk • 12:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of issues addressed in Degrassi: The Next Generation

Unnotable, primarily unreferenced list that just duplicates episode summaries and character articles, and is too prone to WP:OR and WP:PLOT. Violates WP:FICT. The concept itself, of Degrassi covering relevant issues would be better covered in prose in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, and consists almost completely of plot summaries. Lankiveil (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as OR. And WP:NOONECARES. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and fairly subjective IMO, not to mention plain unnecessary. •97198 talk 14:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Lawrence Art Collection

No references quoted, and I can find none. Suspected hoax article. All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed Mighty Antar (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The original author is a single purpose account, which looks odd as well. Pharmboy (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. SPA, not to mention the blatant POV in the article. DodgerOfZion (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV aside, no references or sources to indicate that this art collection is notable. Lankiveil (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. While there may not be much mention of mr lawrence or his art collection in the form of references,this is a factor he is begining to to change,with high profile donations to museums and new loans to be arranged through out 2008.Please also note that this is a page in the making,it is not yet complete. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk)

Comment. You may want to expand your wiki-horizons. So far, according to your contribs, your English Wikipedia career has been confined to this particular subject. Just doing what the good book of Wikipedia says. DodgerOfZion (talk) 06:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The lack of references, the general tone, the hero's age, the SPA all make this look extremely like a hoax. If Mr Lawrence does inherit these things in 2008, and if all these high profile happenings happen, then there will be independent verifiable sources and an article can be created. But I shall not be holding my breath. Meanwhile, for a hoax, it's had a good run - six weeks - but it's delete time. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I shall be expanding my "wiki-horizons" but i dont have all day to sit in on wikipedia at the moment.As for JohnCDs comments id like to point out that i dont see how mr lawrence is being made to look like a hero in this article and as for his age,well thats one of the things that make him unique in the art world.you may wish to delete this article but i asure you by the end of this new year it will be back with more references than you can handle. Nationalgalleryadmin (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.203.195 (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI Comment Am I the only one who thinks you ARE Mark Lawrence, supported by the image you uploaded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N503198853_58306_770.jpg (note perfect viewpoint of camera taking picture of self, including fish eye effect from being too close and poorly cropped on sides to hide the fact. I do a little photography as well.) so I would say there is a COI issue, lending more credibility to the hoax, or wp:vanity issues at best. Pharmboy (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If reliable refs can be procured to est. notability in the future, author can reintroduce it then. Phyesalis (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no way to tell if it's a hoaxor not as the information is unverifiable, no evidence of notability due to lack secondary sources. [[Guest9999 (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Strong delete, no reliable sources indicating any of this is true, so ultimately violates the policy on verifiability. Might be a hoax, and more than definitely some sort of conflict of interest issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, is User:Artlover2008 considered a sockpuppet account or an appropriate response (new account creation) to the blocking of User:Nationalgalleryadmin? That needs to be cleared up as well, but that probably is outside the scope of this AfD... --Kinu ^t/_c 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not worth blocking User:Artlover2008 as a sock: how long would it be before User:spiritofbernardberenson or User:tategallerydirector bobbed up to take over? JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: an IP (most likely one used by the primary contributor to this article) is repeatedly removing the AfD notice from this article. Continued removal may result in semi-protection. Also, according to the article, the gallery has an official website (http://malartcollection.co.uk)... which is actually an unregistered domain available for purchase. Come on, if you're going to blatantly hoax, try a little harder to make it somewhat convincing. :P --Kinu ^t/_c 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have semi-protected the article after the AfD tag was removed yet again. If an IP wishes to contribute to the discussion, they may do so here. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as full of lies. DS (talk) 00:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Asher

Prodded as hoax and deprodded by creator. Maybe my cold is jamming my head too much, but I fail to see notability. Contains some discrepancies and lacks verifiable sourcing. (I cannot find any reference to this Jayson Asher in a Google search or in the news. ) Dloh cierekim 01:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Google can't find "Wilhelm Corbin" either... GregorB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ~~garbage~~ hoax and per nom. Pharmboy (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, complete unrefrenced Hoax Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 04:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I wouldn't worry about your cold, looks fairly comprehensively non-notable. No sources, etc etc. Lankiveil (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I never thought I'd see an articel what that many legitimately added warning templates... 68.39.174.238 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dumb. Also note creator has removed AfD notice. JuJube (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The CIA needs to extract a defector from Austria in the 1990s? Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as very obvious (but amusing) hoax, and possibly a record for the longest {{articleissues}} tag ever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/snowball delete as hoax. Creator continues to remove AfD and article issues. Jfire (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. TGreenburgPR (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Degrassi-related articles

Unnecessary and barely maintained list that just duplicates the easier to maintain and better working Category:Degrassi category. Collectonian (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't we just make a category instead of an arbitrary list? Doc Strange (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there already is a category, and this list serves no purpose. Lankiveil (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete redundant/much harder to maintain. –Pomte 12:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Happy New Year! Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per nom and other delete !votes so far. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Santos Gallery

A bunch of photos of a Antony Santos. Wikipedia is not an art gallery. I fail to see encyclopedic value of someone's photos. I say, delete together with all photos, leaving 1-2 for the article. I also hignly doubt that these photos are original photos of the uploader, but rather photos of photos from magazine pages. This one- Image:Antony Santos X.jpg - with no hi res triggered my suspicion. `'Míkka >t 01:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and even in an article they'd have to have some relevance, see Norman Rockwell for example. And that's beside any copyright issues. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not the sort of place for this, Commons is. Lankiveil (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Woods at Indian Field

Prod removed, so here we are. Un-remarkable housing development. No more than 10 Ghits for either name given. Shawis (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinarily non-notable. JJL (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL's extraordinary observation. Pharmboy (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unremarkable townhouse development. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, jumping on the non-notable bandwagon. Nothing else to say except that it doesn't fulfill its burden of establishing its importance and probably never will TheBilly (talk) 09:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus. PeaceNT (talk) 15:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half-truth

AfDs for this article:

Way too much of this article sounds like the original research of the user who originally created this page (who appears to be User:Caesarjbsquitti); the fact that entire sections of the article lack citations further backs up my suspicion. The main reason why this article was kept in the first discussion was because User:Caesarjbsquitti stated that a book on the topic was to be published in early 2007. IMH, YTDMNST Morgan695 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant original research/synthesis, not really backed up by the references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The rewrite hasn't cleaned too much up yet, but I'm willing to let this one pass, if barely. The subject truly is encyclopedic, and there's always a possibility for a rewrite. I'm trusting User:Dhartung to source the article as stated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Original AfD was predicated on OR issues, which had been addressed and was closed as Keep. Nothing indicates that the close was based on a forthcoming published book, nor does there seem to be any relevance to the claim. The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard, and any claimed WP:OR issues should be tagged as such, rather than used as an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a half-truth (as in a statement that is only partially true) and User:Caesarjbsquitti's interpretation of the concept, which he has written into this article. Frankly, I really don't think anything in the current article is salvagible. Morgan695 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep ~~The article doesn't feature citations for the most part, and is generally poorly-written, as well as ill-defining of the concept of half-truths.~~ Agree with UsaSatsui; a complete is probably better than deletion, after all, as long as it's done relatively soon. Alloranleon (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable topic, regardless of whether the current page is OR or not. JJL (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it needs a complete overhaul due to the OR, and would probably be better off deleted in the meantime. Alloranleon (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. Bit too involved for a wiktionary, which is the other possibilitycheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable enough, not wp:neo, and the article isn't that bad for a start. Needs cleaning up to cite what would otherwise be OR, but is very salvageable and worthwhile. Pharmboy (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current version is the result of an overhaul by user:Dmoss, an update I personally do not see as satisfactory. As was stated by User:Alloranleon, I think this article is better off deleted in the interim of a valid article on this topic. Morgan695 (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is contrary to wp:IDONTLIKE, and if we spent half the time on the article that we spent on the AFD, there wouldn't be an issue. You can always be bold and make the edits yourself. Regardless, an article needing fixing is almost never a valid reason for deletion, it is a reason for improvement as long as the premise is valid. By my estimation, the current article may be flawed but is valid and was created in good faith. Pharmboy (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT really is about liking the topic. It is our responsibility, on the other hand, to be concerned about article quality. There is a point where articles need more than fixing. This is a really borderline case (see my comment below). --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Deception. It's not a neologism, but it is a form of deception. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sourcing some stuff in order to salvage the article. Not because it needs sourcing in order to convince people to keep it, obviously, but because it's likely to be kept and remain in horrid shape otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 06:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. StaticElectric (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This needs work, not a deletion. The solution could lie in a merge, a rewrite, better sourcing, whatever, but a deletion certainly isn't the answer. And can someone tell me just how deleting an article makes it better? --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a pretty decent account of what a half-truth is, backed up by examples from statistics and philospophy, as well as everyday life ( eating 6 servings of vegetables a day, but as pizza toppings ). I don't see any "original research" as there is no editor-discovered or editor-deduced material in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm primarily concerned about the section Purpose and the made-up examples. The other sections are "merely" disjointed. Sources discussing why someone would tell a half-truth, shall we say, do not abound. It's probably fixable, but needs major work yet. --Dhartung | Talk 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the examples have a lot of explanatory value, but go ahead and delete the Purpose section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deception, No need for its own article, especially with the poor state its been in. -Djsasso (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no redirect; stand alone; it is the term that will be accessed. It is a meaty issue commonly discussed throughout Wikipedia and one that is being eaten away by the Five Pillars. It is one of many types of deception, so many that they are listed individually in blue. Otherwise the 'Deception' article will get too large. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possessionless

AfDs for this article:

procedural nomination — version brought to AFD: An article on the same topic was deleted in October 2007 under WP:CSD#G12 (copyvio) during an AFD discussion; a reanimated version of the article was PROD'd the day before yesterday. I agree with the PROD nominator when they stated "Not released yet. No sources. WP:NOT a crystal ball." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reliable sources to be seen. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, crystal ball. JJL (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. It could be completly made up. KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL, no proof that this will ever be released. Lankiveil (talk) 04:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't be serious. Are you on crack of something? --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the reasons I gave when I prodded it. Exxolon (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this stub has no content, context or analysis and fails WP:CRYSTAL. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Basically it is an spam for the band's next record. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A1 (no context) by User:Jj137 just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities official sites

This list could go on forever, official sites are listed on celebrities' pages. Dan Leveille^TALK 00:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sawani

I initially prodded this. No reliable sources to verify this musician who creates songs "mainly for a small audience of friends". Could have been a speedy candidate under G11 or A7, but since this has previously been undeleted (and then not improved for nearly a year) looks like it has to come to Articles for Deletion. JayHenry (talk) 07:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. Macy's 123 review me 17:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Mr Senseless (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not notable. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn . JJL (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Saying you record "mainly for a small audience of friends" should be somewhere in a definition of how to fail on WP:MUSIC if it's not already. That's classic. Ψν^Psi_nu 03:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, wp:music Thedjatclubrock :) ^(T/C) —Preceding comment was added at 04:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how he meets WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, leaning to Keep; appears to be a fairly stable list, though it needs cleaning up. BLACKKITE 01:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of local children's television series (United States)

This article is an overextended and never fully able to be completed, indiscriminate list of redlinks about every remembered local children's television show in the United States. The list serves absolutely no purpose. —№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė ♫♪ 00:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom on the first AFD of 2008 (technically), I think a category would be better for this. ViperSnake151 00:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Looks like a lot of time was spent on it. It could be useful to someone.KingsOfHearts (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am sure lots of time was spent on it, but that is exactly the definition of a non-argument on Wikipedia. (see WP:EFFORT#People put a lot of work into it). It might be useful to someone, which is also an excellent non-argument.(see wp:USEFUL) and not valid for discussion in an AFD. The nom is about being an indescriminate list. Why not List of local stations with Simpsons reruns? That has a larger market share. The problem is the premise is flawed and there is no hope to properly maintain to boot. Pharmboy (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminate, unsourced, and most likely incomplete list. Verifiability may also prove difficult for some shows. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list. Userify it if someone really wants it, as obviously a fair bit of work has been put in, but really not appropriate for Wikipedia as outlined above. Lankiveil (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep These are a notable part of television history. I think it can be complete, and possibly already is, as every one I'd ever heard of is mentioned, it actually seems like a quite impressive list. This should be kept to a list of articles that would meet our inclusion standards, and thus it would only include notable programs. Similar to Deaths in 2007 and so on... obviously we don't list all deaths, yet it's still a workable list. --W.marsh 16:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. The article is a discriminate list with sources. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change the redlinks to black. This is a historical TV format from many years ago. As far as "incompleteness", I don't expect this list to attract cruft because this kind of show simply isn't done anymore. Everything is already on the list. Also people old enough to remember such things are long past the age when they'd be adding trivia to the wiki. WP:Recentism is not a reason to delete the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Recentism is an essay, not a policy, and "...editors are not obliged to follow it.", so I am not sure how effective that argument is. Pharmboy (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recentism is only an observation. The issue is whether the list is possible to maintain. I contend that the list is stable because it is a historical list. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom. Tavix (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, as a useful, targetd list. Hey folks, it is a mess. Can we get the red links to NN shows out? If kept, I'll take a crack at it. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No source. No evidence of notability, being a boyband member doesn't cut it. PeaceNT (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Olivero

Little content, nothing of any encyclopedic interest. American Patriot 1776 (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, seems to be covered in trashy gossip magazines: [6], which would indicate he's notable. Lankiveil (talk) 06:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Per WP:MUSIC, there's no grounds whatsoever for failing anyone in a band as notable as Menudo, however much its membership frequently shifts. Ravenswing 08:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As American Patriot 1776 pointed out, little content and no encyclopedic interest. In addition, this reeks of original research, or alternatively may have been ripped from another web-site. In the absence of anyone willing to rewrite this to a decent standard, I say delete. Alloranleon (talk) 12:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He isn't really notable, I think you could just have a small bio about him on the band's article. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He isn't notable right now , but in some time he might be on the news all the time like Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears .Lilgunner94 (talk) 5:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Rigadoun (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article sucks. tbone (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faxon Montessori}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calcium Lime Rust}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ain't That Life (album)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satisfied (album)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahaga/Toa Hagah}}
@@ Line 28: / Line 27: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aguadilla Mall}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Landing Mall}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Insulation}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Shamal}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (footballer)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuut-Riit}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet General Orders}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles character appearances}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishiki rice}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Stockman}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savanti Romero}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Walton (musician)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-3 Long Range Strike Platform}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuevo Rico (2nd nomination)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comedic Improvisation Alliance}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDRP}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R Band}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raven-Symoné (album)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wade Load}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cars 2 (2nd nomination)}}