Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

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 per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sandstein (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everitt Road saga

Nominating this for deletion again, on essentially the same premise as the first nomination: It is still a "Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia."

Although there are about 50 results in Factiva for this incident (I have a PDF of all the results available by e-mail if anyone wants it), it remains a strictly local (Singapore-only) phenomenon, and an unremarkable one at that. It died down after the last court hearing a year ago and no articles - even in the Singapore press - have mentioned it since then. To quote User:Lar from the first nomination, this tiff has had zero influence on public policy and has not changed the lives of any otherwise notable persons. It is nothing like the Hatfield-McCoy feud because it has made little impact on the outside world.

In summary, the Chan family's antics may have generated "widespread" media coverage back 3-4 years ago, but no one remembers them now and WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOT#NEWS states that "topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial," and I think that bar is cleared here. Singapore's government actually has an article on this feud here, and if this much information is available in English, I can only speculate at how much press this has generated in Malay, Tamil, or Mandarin. I'm also unconvinced that anyone in Singapore would consider the Hatfield-McCoy feud more notable than we Westerners consider the Everitt Road saga. --Hyperbole 06:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I remain unconvinced. [1] goes to a website not by the govt, but a encyclopedia run by the local National Library. Their cited sources are just a re-hash of the same newspaper articles. Resurgent insurgent 07:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The National Library Board of Singapore is a government agency. I would tend to believe that if this "saga" is notable enough for the Singaporean government to preserve online, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Hyperbole 07:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure whether I think this is notable or not, but it certainly isn't notable under the name "Everitt Road saga". [2] [3] This name seems problematic. - Revolving Bugbear 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I realize that this incident made the news in Singapore, but that is fundamentally local coverage: Singapore is a country but it is also a single city, and this is a mere local news story. It has been covered in the news there but not widely or in depth. Mango juice^talk 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep While WP:CRAP generally isn't a good argument, the fact that over 300 other college stations exists is---Category:College radio stations in the United States.Balloonman (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Squirrel Radio

Contested speedy undeleted and brought to AFD. Was originally deleted for not asserting notability per WP:WEB (it is an internet radio station). This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. Core desat 05:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a college radio station at Kent State University that has been on the air since the 1930s. They changed their name in the mid 1990s and have over 24,000 hits on Google under their new name and who knows how many media references under their old name. You might even find some notable DJs who cut their teeth there. 199.125.109.68 05:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard the comment made by 199.125.109.68 it is the ip of the creator and all he has beeen doing lately is casuing trouble. Yourname 00:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I have no relation to the creator, you have no reason to be so assuming. If you check my edits you will see that I have contributed over 500 edits to over 100 articles, and none were done other than to improve the articles. You really need to lighten up and assume good faith. The creator on the other hand, is a new editor who has done very few edits and needs to be helped and encouraged. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs sourcing but should be salvageable. As it stands is a CSD A7, but I'm sure it can be improved so that it isn't. No more bongos 06:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete either as NN-web or NN-group, depending on one's point of view. Definitely no claims of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [4] - This level of scholarly documentation, along with references in at least 35 news articles and approximately 24,200 Google hits indicates sufficient notability. EFindlicher 15:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's Kent's own website, hardly a secondary source, much less a reliable secondary source. And while Google hits are mostly irrelevant to such discussions, since you mentioned it I get 87 unique Google hits for "Black Squirrel Radio" in quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discrediting anything from Kent State's website as a source is not a valid argument; Kent State is a community of over 30,000 students and faculty; there are several media outlets at Kent State that operate as (as much as is possible) unbiased news sources and are not controlled or censored by the university administration or faculty. These include the Daily Kent Stater, TV-2 & Black Squirrel Radio. Being that Kent State is the intended market for the station, it is unlikely you will find large amounts of scholarly research and news coverage on it outside of this community. On wikipedia, Daily Kent Stater currently redirects to Kent State's page, where it has a paragraph under the Student Media section. If not considered worthy of its own article, at the very least it should be merged into Kent State's page. EFindlicher 16:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "...it is unlikely you will find large amounts of scholarly research and news coverage on it outside of this community." Thank you, that pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would contest that this is true of any radio station, even broadcast stations; they are by their nature regional phenomena, but that does not make them without notability. The community or Kent State students, faculty & alumni totals over 200,000 people. EFindlicher 16:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kent State University as suggested above - not enough individual notability for its own article. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would not be a good idea. Articles get too long as they are and adding details about the school radio station is not a good idea. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and lock to prevent from being recreated NN a7 also i think there also trying to promote their site here! Yourname 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was creator of this article. I am not, and have never been an employee at Black Squirrel Radio. I am a Kent State alumnus, and was a student at the university when the name change occurred, but my point in creating this article was not to promote their website... I'm seeing already that this kind of knee-jerk accusation happens far too often. I hoped to contribute an article about something I felt was culturally and historically significant in the realm of college radio, but I quickly tire of this sort of garbage. I was the one who initially suggested the merge into the Kent State University article, where it could live alongside the Daily Kent Stater and TV-2, its print and television counterparts at the university. Do what you will, I no longer care. EFindlicher 00:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked that it not be deleted. I have no relationship whatsoever to BSR or Kent State. I would ask that reviewers compare with other Category:College radio stations in the United States. My own college radio station (one of the 315 in the category), for example, cites absolutely no references other than radio-locator. Most that I checked were stubs with no references. See for example WRGW. To single out BSR as not notable would be vindictive and wrong. The proposer that it be deleted, Yourname, really needs to lighten up and find another ax to grind. 199.125.109.50 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment - Could people please try and handle AFD in a polite and constructive way. Please try to assume good faith and talk about the article rather than commenting on each other. That applies to both of you. I am Abstaining since I don't know enough about the subject, but it would be useful if people could try and find some reliable sources rather than snapping at each other. No more bongos 17:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete NN-web or NN-group, no claims of notability in the article. 68.49.67.157 03:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 68.49.67.157. Dangledorf 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Don't merge. Add references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Heritage and details provided support a claim of notability. Article needs cleanup and would benefit from additional sources, all of which could have been accomplished with one of many tags designed for just such purpose. Alansohn 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has claims to origin in 1949 as well as origin in the 1930's, so they should get their story straight. This apparently never was a licensed broadcast station, but rather a college hobby effort or a class assignment. Non-licensed hobby broadcast operations have generally not been found to satisfy WP:N. It lacks either evidence of FCC licensing or of multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison 03:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kent State. Majoreditor 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: And redirect the page to the appropriate section at Kent State University. - Rjd0060 04:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kent State University. Doesn't need it's own article as it doesn't seem to be notable for anything other than being owned by Kent State. — Save_Us_229 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Kent_state#Student_media. Thought it might be notable from the comments above but the lineage isn't as clear as suggested. Seems to be a recent online radio setup that isn't even mentioned in the main Kent State article. The 1930s radio station might be a more notable candidate for an article. MLA 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same radio station over the years. It currently has 100 DJs. They changed their name a few years ago, but nothing else changed. I just don't see that there is any minimum length to articles, but I do see that merging this with KSU will make that article unnecessarily long. This AFD is a formality, because someone mistakenly asked that BSR be deleted, what do you plan on doing with the other 400 college radio station articles? Take a look at any of them.[5] Why should BSR be treated any differently. Let them have their article. I wouldn't want anyone to delete my college radio station, which is barely different from the coverage of BSR, and actually has less references. 199.125.109.50 23:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge to Kent State University...Because of the station's age and the college it is affiliated with, it is somewhat notable, but it should be included in the Kent State page proper Doc Strange 14:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dub (wheel)

Nominated per WP:N, WP:V, and possibly WP:NOR. I prod'ed the article approximately a month ago, but the notice was removed without comment. Afterwards, I tagged the article for some of the reasons noted above, but nearly a month without any real response (despite my explanation and encouragement on the talk page) suggests that either the concerns I raised cannot be addressed or that no editor is willing to do so. I strongly suspect the former, and so I've brought it to AfD. jonny-mt(t)(c) 05:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~pimp~~ Delete - No assertion of notability, and I fail to see how this could ever be verifiable. No more bongos 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Further comment Merge any useful content to the article on the magazine and redirect.No more bongos 17:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC) I stand by my contention that it is impossible to create a decent article on this subject. This page should be at best a redirect to the magazine or to Alloy wheel. No more bongos 04:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete without prejudice to recreation. Searching Google for "dub wheel" makes it very clear that the term "Dub" is in widespread use, not only on the streets, but commercially. In fact, Wikipedia has an article on DUB Magazine, a magazine about these wheels. However, this article is entirely OR and really cannot be easily fixed. If no one can fix it before the close of the AfD, I suggest we scrap it and start over. --Hyperbole 07:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Term is clearly notable. While article does contain considerable OR at this point it could be fixed. Sources are clearly available try searching for Dub wheel on google news and plenty come up. I say stub the article to remove the OR and let it grow from there, I will certainly keep an eye on it to make sure it stays clear of unverifiable garbage. --Daniel J. Leivick 08:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable and verifiable...you can get virtual infinite amounts of reliable secondary info from DUB Magazine... Smashville 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur, a notable article experiencing a temporary plague of OR. Trim & keep. THE KING 12:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, bad article. Notorious4life 22:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am an anonymous websurfer who came to this page ignorant that DUB = wheel; when I googled 'DUB,' this page answered the definition I was seeking. (10 November 2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.225.33 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 16:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aoi Umenokouji

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section which is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Aoi Umenokouji' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums, videogame guides, and unrelated mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Each Virtua Fighter character has a separate page, which might be problematic. I can't vote Delete or Merge on this page and leave the others alone. Could you consider withdrawing this AfD and opening up a discussion on the Virtua Fighter talk page? JuJube 11:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with this. Especially since, per WP:FICT, merge is the prefered option here, so this really ought to have started with a merge proposal. —Quasirandom 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 16:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable character with no sources. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 22:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:FICT into List of Virtua Fighter characters, the parent article that it's a fork of. —Quasirandom 00:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Why does this deserve deletion? it is as notable as the next VF Character The Straight Edge Superstar 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PayneXKiller (talk • contribs)
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Yuuzhan Vong

Subject lacks real world notability, there are no secondary sources to meet WP:FICT. I doubt this is even notable in the Star Wars universe. Additionally, It has been unsourced for over a year. It also fails WP:NOT#PLOT due to excessive plot information in lieu of a real world context. Pilotbob 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This should probably be bundled with the nomination below for List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am against bundling because I believe that articles should stand on their own merit. The community consensus on that AFD may be different on this topic than others. It becomes confusing to throw things together. Pilotbob 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stand-alone list for topics that aren't notable by themselves but warrant listing as part of a larger topic. Cleanup, not deletion, is the answer. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no sober arguement for keeping this plot summmary. Firstly this article is written from a heavy in universe perspective which is devoid of real-world context or analysis. Secondly, there are no primary sources to verify the content is not original research. Lastly, there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these fictional characters have any real-world notability. The article provides a link to starwars.com, which is where this material needs to go. --Gavin Collins 11:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not getting involved in this debate except to point out that the primary source(s) is mentioned in the lead sentence: "This is a listing of Yuuzhan Vong characters in the New Jedi Order series of Expanded Universe novels from the fictional Star Wars universe" (emphasis mine). The question of whether each individual entry needs a reference is a question I'd leave up to other editors to hash out, although I'd not seen such in other lists I've come across in Wikipedia (eg. List of characters from The Sopranos). -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It boils down to this: If Yuuzhan Vong is a valid article (and I would say that it is), then a List of Yuuzhan Vong is a legitimate content fork. -Chunky Rice 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close nomination was by now blocked sock. JoshuaZ 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiolina Germi

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a plot summary of the character with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT, and a trivia section which is discouraged under WP:TRIVIA. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Fiolina Germi' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fio has appeared in the King of Fighters series, and all of those characters have pages. It's a bit of a problem to delete this article but leave the others alone. Could you consider withdrawing this AfD and discussing the issue in the King of Fighters talk page? JuJube 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at the others, but it's likely they should be deleted as well. Have reliable secondary sources devoted substantial coverage to any of them? Doctorfluffy 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant player character in not one but TWO notable, long running major-publisher video game series. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Have reliable secondary sources devoted substantial coverage to this character? Doctorfluffy 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a character list. This article has no secondary sources and no real-world information. There is nothing here to justify a separate article. Pagra shtak 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all character articles into a single list for the series. No critical commentary or third party sources to confirm individual notability. David Fuchs^(talk) 01:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate, hate, hate WP:FICT simply because it gives barely any suggestions for what qualifies as "notable". Honestly, how many video game characters have had literary analysis on them? Looking at some VG character GAs, it looks like the only way to establish "notability" is to look for mentions of the characters in reviews, in which case neo-geo.com's reviewer on Metal Slug 2 praises the character design and calls Fio his favorite character. Frankly though, I think being major character in 7 video games and a notable crossover in 3 makes her notable enough.--72.204.47.232 19:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FICT is pretty straight forward - "fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources". It goes on, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content". WP:RS and WP:RSEX go into more detail about what exactly a reliable source is. The review you provided would probably be considered a trivial mention, whereas most notability guidelines require "significant" or "substancial" coverage. Doctorfluffy 20:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not straightforward at all. The character can't be sold, details on development do not establish notability, characters aren't reviewed, and any mechandise the character is part of would also be deemed irrelevent.--72.204.45.94 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sales don't really apply in this case.

Details on development help establish real-world context and, in turn, notability. That guideline says just that.

Important characters are "reviewed" in many cases. I'm sure you could easily find a character analysis, a critical commentary, or an article detailing cultural impact for Darth Vader, Superman, or Atticus Finch in just a few minutes on Google.

Merchandising can apply in many cases. For example, there may be a line of products based on a ficional character when a product line doesn't exist for the series itself or isn't considered important - perhaps that character's sales make up 90% of the total sales.

I think what you're doing wrong is assuming that it's possible for the notability criteria to be met in a large majority of circumstances, when that's not the case. The guidelines are trying to define a subjective concept in objective terms and are meant to be somewhat restrictive because not everything is notable. Doctorfluffy 00:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RE2: Developer blog entry on Fio. There are at least six other entries that discuss her as well.

RE3: Bad examples. We're talking video game characters here. Seach for "character analysis" about video game characters and you get game guides, which WP is not. Also, Link (The Legend of Zelda) (FA) has no such section.--72.204.45.94 07:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep The "objects" are integral to the plots and storylines in the series. The article appears to be simply a split-off per WP:SUMMARY so as not to make the main article too long. --Polaron | Talk 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objects from The Lost Room

Article contains solely an in universe context. No secondary reliable sources could be located to meet WP:FICT. Not notable in the real world. Pilotbob 05:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia permits lists that are content forks from notable fiction, where they would otherwise overwhelm the main article. See, e.g., Characters of Lost, List of characters in Heroes, or List of Star Wars weapons. This article is not well sourced (the "References" are just a hand-wave to the official site), but that just means it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Wikipedia is not paper. --Hyperbole 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the main reference is the actual TV Show. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole. PilotBob, nominating everythin out of hand is not the solution. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge AFD is not cleanup Colonel Warden 08:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable in an in-universe context, which is allowed to stay if as Hyperbole said, it would otherwise overwhelm the original article. Since, in The Lost Room, the entire show is based around these objects, I think it serves a purpose for in-universe reference. ~ PH DrillSergeant...§ 17:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 17:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I'm surprised at the keep votes here. This article is just a giant plot summary (failing WP:NOT#PLOT) with no real world context. Pilotbob 05:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JBpedia

Advertising new website. Google shows no independent coverage by reliable sources. Notability not really asserted, either -- it's just a "here it is" article. Delete as nom. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 05:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~per CSD A7~~ No more bongos 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure A7 applies here -- CISV, the owning organization, is notable: this is just a project that I don't think meets WP's requirements.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case, delete per non-notability of project. No more bongos 17:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Prodego ^talk 20:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional airborne castles

This is a list of information that is largle non notable. It is not sourced and contains no real world context. It has been tagged for references since November of 2006. Pilotbob 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that it's certainly obscure, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's not notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, delete as non-notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another 'in pop culture' list, consisting of mostly non-notable locations and videogame obscura. Take any fantasy or sci-fi facet and most likely you'll find it in videogames in one form or another - and hey, what's not to like about a floating castle? There may be a feasible article to be written on the subject (in addition to Laputa), but this list isn't it, and the majority of locations listed here wouldn't qualify to be in it.Someone another 05:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fanlistcruft. Yuck. No more bongos 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cause Sky Rockets in FLIGHT! Afternoon DELIGHT! Castles flying even better. KEEP KEEP KEEP. Awesome. 203.220.107.23 11:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We don't want to cause confusion between these fictional items and actual, REAL-LIFE, airborne castles. Mandsford 12:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid deletion argument. There should be no confusion since the article in question has the word "fictional" in its title. 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I guess these are the fictional ones. Mandsford 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(with a slight tinge of regret) as there is no evidence that the concept of airbourne castles in fiction is notable. [[Guest9999 14:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
- No, but it is not unlikely that it is notable, since the concept appears in Jack and the Beanstalk AND The Empire Strikes Back AND Gulliver's Travels (according to the article, haven't read the book myself). 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn topic. JJL 15:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, since airborne castles are key elements both in a very famous fairy tale (Jack and the Beanstalk) and in one of the most popular films of all time (The Empire Strikes Back). It could improve if it was transformed from a list to a decent article, called Airborne castles in fiction, dealing with the subject in a more encyclopedic way. I think it is likely that if one looks for them, one could find reliable sources on the subject. Remember, there is no deadline. 96T 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why can't this article make up its mind? Sometimes it's about floating castles, at others floating cities. Clarityfiend 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect as a search term. W.marsh 15:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arquillians

Non-notable fictional race. Article is a plot summary of the race with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. "'Arquillians' -wikipedia" on Google returns non-reliable fansites and forums and trivial mentions. Without reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to establish notability, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - nominator indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 20:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a collection of non-notable, (generally) unsourced entries with no real-world significance whatsoever. There is nothing worth keeping or merging, as that would simply add Trekcruft to other articles. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek

This article is a large collection of in universe information for which no real world context could ever be established. There are no sources to meet the reliable secondary source requirement set forth in WP:FICT. Therefore notability cannot be established. Additionally, this is just plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and puke. These kinds of lists make me want to boke. For the sake of actually bothering to present an argumet, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of yadda yadda yadda... No more bongos 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to somewhere else in the many Star Trek articles. Yes, it's fun, and most of us have heard of "plomik soup" (D.C. Fontana's in-joke about something that would sound like "vomit"), but as Pilotbob says, these are plot devices, concepts of something "alien". I like bongos' word "boke"-- never heard of it before now. Mandsford 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this list is the result of a previous AFD of several articles. I'm a bit reluctant to undo the good faith work of those editors. Neutral on the AFD at the moment, though. Otto4711 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with hesitation - as the article states that there is a Star Trek Cookbook, perhaps some of these items can be sourced from there as well as one of those Star Trek Encyclopedia things I have seen. I personally don't have one so I can't help. If these items are not sourced however, the article seems to fail from WP:Not as much of the information would have to come from direct observance of the television series if these books do not cite these foodstuffs.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dammit Jim, Wikipedia's not a trivia repository. Clarityfiend 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:OR and I'm sure many others. There is already a Star Trek Wiki for this information. Ridernyc 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous AfD that previous AFD that Otto4711 mentioned. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as I've said before mergeing unencyclopedic entries into one article just makes one giant unencyclopedic article. Ridernyc 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is lots of Star Trek stuff that is notable outside the Star Trek universe. This is not one of them. --Blanchardb 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft at its worst. •97198 talk 09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sourced a bit from the only source I know of that's not an episode (I don't own it, my imaginary Klingon friend does). That done, I don't think any of this should really be in Wikipedia. We're not Memory Alpha or Beta, and if they want to source it there, that's great, but if it's not covered in considerable depth in some source not written by Star Trek producers, then writing that encyclopedia into Wikipedia and sourcing it all from one or two sources focuses a lot of attention on material that really isn't notable enough to include in this encyclopedia.--chaser - t 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy keep as premature. Though the nominator didn't know it at the time, this article was in AfD from the end of September to well into October. Surviving articles should be left alone for a length of time before another deletion attempt. There's no clear place where the line is drawn, but it is drawn beyond mere weeks. This is to allow editors to fix things and/or to decide on an alternate solution to ensure the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of the field (both of which tend to go slow on a volunteer project, too, even when not dealing with a massive and tough article that's a part of the coverage of several dozen works.) Plus rapid renominations, "asking the other parent", would allow persistence and luck to (further) supplant the importance of article merits.

Two other things: I generally recuse myself from closing fiction deletions due to my own activity, but this was procedural (and others were ~~cons~~bugged about it, to be on the safe side.) A general apology for letting the discussion continue a bit after seeing it, but I'm for once confident that you'll understand I was unavoidably delayed. --Kizor 06:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights

This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO). Additionally, I cite precedent from the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ancient_Jedi AFD. Pilotbob 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. By your rationale, should all of the lists in Category:Lists of Star Wars characters be nominated for deletion under WP:FICT? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have not reviewed that entire list of articles so I cannot honestly answer your question. Pilotbob 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that this should be kept because those articles exist; I'm asking if they should be nominated as well. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow not sure about the category. I think more articles listed in the category should have a pass through AFD, if enough of those are deleted then yes, the catgory should go. A chill ran down my spine when I looked at List of Star Wars Characters man theres a lot to clean up. Ridernyc 23:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This list was previously AfDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters. --EEMIV (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this was an interesing read, andin the end isn't that what wikipedia is here for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browny3 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Browny should take note that "an interesting read" is not what WP is here for. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Plot and WP:WAF. No real world context at all. There is already a Star Wars Wiki for this type of content. Ridernyc 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is no out of universe information, such has how they were created and what roles they play in the Star Wars fiction. Without that, this is just plot summary of various stories, and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I enjoy looking at and reading about big blue elephant-like jedi knights... NN, as the title suggests, completely in-universe and unreferenced fancruft. •97198 talk 09:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PeaceNT 02:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schizothymia

Delete this stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This disorder is not a DSM-IV disorder. Article is utterly unsupported by sources. Doczilla 04:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Encarta has an article about it, albeit a short one, I think it's notable enough to be here. See also the sources linked here. Also, while there aren't any references, lack of references in the article isn't a reason to delete. Next time, please do a cursory Google search for references or something to establish that a subject isn't original research or that it is notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this term for this disorder is in reasonably widespread use in scientific literature and appears to be defined in all major dictionaries. --Hyperbole 07:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory search turns up several journal articles dealing with this condition. And let's not forget that DSM-IV hasn't undergone a major update in almost 15 years. —dust mite 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in agreement with current discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close nominated by a blocked sock. Someone else is of course free to start a new AfD if they desire. JoshuaZ 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Clow Cards

List of non-notable fictional cards. Article is a listing of cards with their in-universe purpose and their role in the plot with no real-world context or significance, which fails WP:NOT#PLOT. No substantial coverage in secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Without such sources, it's impossible to rewrite or cleanup the article in such way that it doesn't fail WP:FICT and/or some clause of WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy 04:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it is non-notable, in-univese material. -- Mikeblas 09:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FICT into Clow Cards, which is the parent article this forked from (and acts like an index page for, really). —Quasirandom 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(editor of article) want it to be deleted, was going to replace the three seperate articles into one, but it ended up to be too large and didnt know how to delete it, and also redirect pages back to origonal pages with the pictures for visual aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph mitchell9 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you amplify on that a little? Which three articles are you trying to merge to where? If you ask a little more clearly, perhaps a kind person could step in and assist. —Quasirandom 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Clow Cards. I don't see the need to have the list separate from the main article.--Nohansen 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge. A full copy, as it is now, can easily be placed on the Cardcaptor Sakura Wiki (which is a bit dead right now, but I'd like to work on it after the Digimon Wiki is set up), so the detail will still have a home. -- Ned Scott 21:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The nominating user appears to be unaware of the significance of the franchise or the chards place in it. The Clow Cards are secondary are characters (lists of secondary characters have been established as notable by past precedent and appear for almost all long running series such as south park or the Simpons) who may not be notable individually, but are collectively more than notable enough to have a page to themselves.

Let's be serious. CCS comprises of 2 series of graphic novels and 2 animated series, both of which have been released in multiple languages across the globe. It has spawned 2 movies, 7 video games, more merchandise than you can shake a very large stick at, and the Clow cards are right at the center. There wouldn't be a franchise without them. Of course they are notable. 99% of the nominators complaints are simple content issues, it would be much more sensible simply to fix the entry rather than to suggest getting rid of it. I did pretty much all of what is missing last year (as an IP only user, I think), but "somebody" said that the page was too big and deleted most of it. Anybody who thinks that this page can't be fixed likely isn't aware of the series.

On a purely practical basis, merging would make the main CCS page bloatworthy. It'd be a prime candidate for a split which would simply start this whole cycle off again.

perfectblue 19:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming the cards themselves are notable, you didn't really address the concern that this article is entirely WP:NOT#PLOT summary without real-world context or significance. As notable as this series may be, or the cards may be within the series, it doesn't change the fact that is an extensive plot summary. Forking off content from a main article is acceptable per WP:FICT for formatting/style issues, but not when all that extra content is just going to break policy. Doctorfluffy 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was As nothing was sourced to be mergable, the result was delete and redirect. GRBerry 02:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kashubian Wikipedia

This article is about an edition of Wikipedia, which, according to meta:List of Wikipedias, is only the 137th largest language edition of Wikipedia in terms of number of articles. The article's content is minimal and there are no sources provided other than a link to the Kashubian Wikipedia itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an inherent claim to notability per WP:WEB. For example, the article about Scots Wikipedia was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination), and the Scots Wikipedia is larger than the Kashubian Wikipedia by number of articles and number of editors. Therefore, I recommend a delete. And, just for clarity, this discussion is about whether the article on the English Wikipedia about the Kashubian Wikipedia should be deleted. The Kashubian Wikipedia will continue to exist as an encyclopedia of its own regardless. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure your comparison to Scots Wikipedia is entirely valid. Are number of articles in an encyclopedia directly proportional to that encyclopedia's notability? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's possible that a Wikipedia edition could be deemed notable despite having fewer articles than another edition which had previously been deemed non-notable. But so far I have not found evidence that the Kashubian Wikipedia has achieved that distinction. The comparison to Scots Wikipedia is mostly intended to show that foreign language editions of Wikipedia can be, and have been, deleted via WP:AFD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point, I suppose. Now that I think about it, one could refer to the List of Wikipedias to see which ones have articles and which ones don't. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I really don't see anything wrong with this. jj137 (Talk) 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Putting aside arguments from article-counting, it's pretty clear that there's nothing in this article which can't be stated more concisely in the table. Once there's something more substantial to say - news coverage, for instance - the article can be recreated. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia 132.205.99.122 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of Wikipedias per lack of any evidence of independent notability. Precedent has established that foreign language Wikipedias are not inherently notable. Terraxos 03:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. W.marsh 15:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schimelpfenig Middle School

Contested PROD. School does not assert any notability. Of course it is important in the sense that people get an education there, however there are hundreds of thousands of schools in the country, but most of them are not notable. User that removed PROD noted that this article should stay only because X and Y have articles, so I recommend that user see WP:WAX. Rjd0060 04:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:If consensus feels it is appropriate, I would suggest a redirect to Plano Independent School District. Rjd0060 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, nothing notable about this school. Maybe redirect if the school district it is in has a article. TJ Spyke 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect doesn't look like enough to prop up an article on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. —Noroton 15:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Plano Independent School District - there is mergable content. TerriersFan 22:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russella

Non-notable drag queen. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Oof. Non notable, obviously. - Rjd0060 04:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nowhere close to WP:BIO. shoeofdeath 22:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eon (American role-playing game)

Non notable idea/product that has no reliable sources and is written in an advertisement style. Not deletable per CSD A7 because it is a product/idea/game. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 04:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. L337 kybldmstr 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable game. States that in the second sentence of the article. - Rjd0060 04:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, appears to be something made up in school one day. Edward321 04:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Our new rpg, Eon, has been coming along great so far. nuff said. JuJube 05:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is an encyclopedia, not GeoCities. Grief. Someone another 06:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baleet per someone or other. Vanispamadvert. No more bongos 06:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kind of enjoyed reading the article but this belongs to a draft rather than Wikipedia.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article: "Our new rpg, Eon, has been coming along great so far". Geocities is that-a-way, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is definitely easier to edit than Geocities (IMO), but that doesn't mean people can use it as their personal website. - Superlex 23:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acequeen La DeFrancisco

Non-notable, doesn't state notability, no google hits, not even porn-notable. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to be notable. There are no sources / external links that don't seem to be directly involved with the subject. - Rjd0060 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plenty of notability claimed but not a single reliable source to back any of it up. For example, claims to have worked on makeup for America's Next Top Model, but isn't on the IMDB credits as such, despite having dozens of others listed. Also gets just 6 Google hits, and of those 5 are Wikipedia and the other is her Myspace page. Speaking of which, she has it set to look like she has hundreds of thousands of Myspace friends but actually only has 200 some... not that number of myspace friends matters much regarding the article, but I definitely get the feeling something fishy is going on here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StarBlind. Utterly lacking in verifiability. —dust mite 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, copyright infringement. Keegan^talk 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yangon International Educare Center

A fine example of a genuine vanispamcruftisement. The entire article is composed of originally researched, unencyclopedic, unsourced, spammy and non-notable material. Hús ö nd 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

NO DELETION It's a real school! Wikipedia sucks in research! Go search YIEC in search engines! (YIEC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.138 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. Doczilla 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per notability (,..lack of). - Rjd0060 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to Delete: Go and TYPE YIEC in Google you nerds! And go type it in Youtube.com (Maskmaker) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk • contribs)
Don't Delete: I see noreason at all to delete this Article. It is based on fact. I saw it in it's original web page. It's all word to word from YIEC web page. One can find it on www.yiec.org. (ISY) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.161.153 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If it's word-for-word from the YIEC web page, it should be speedy deleted as a copyvio. shoy (^words _words) 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It is. See [6]. If the copy violation was removed, we'd be left with only the lead. Tagged for speedy. shoy (^words _words) 20:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep School seems to get regular mentions in English language media for that country, e.g. The Irrawady Colonel Warden 08:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything is mentioned in English language media. And that doesn't help to solve any of the concerns listed above to justify deletion. Hús ö nd 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sockpuppets and personal attacks aren't exactly helping its case any either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (and quickly) per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cam'ron's sixth studio album

Unconfirmed album, it doesn't even has a name yet, wikipedia isn't a crystal ball Delete-- This is a Secret ^account 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak abstain --124.40.47.134 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're not funny, go back to ED plz. JuJube 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, but if it's been announced then it should be mentioned in Cam'ron's main article. L337 kybldmstr 04:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per CBALL. No date and no info. Bring it back down the road when there is more information. - Rjd0060 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reirect to and history merge with Dub (wheel)~~ delete. Oh, can someone please assume good faith with the IP? No more bongos 06:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Weak abstain" is not a vote, it's a poor attempt at a joke. JuJube 07:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, none of these are "votes". - Rjd0060 15:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as a case of crystalballery. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: This album has been announced by multiple sources. Just because a name hasn't been released does not mean it should not be publicized yet. This album is a much anticipated album by Cam'ron and a name will most likely be released very soon. User: Samuelb88 8:44 PST Nov. 6, 2007.
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Doctorfluffy 08:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Dyslexia Correction

Delete this ad for an unproven method not backed by adequate research. The article has not established notability at all and appears to have been written with a serious violation of WP:COI. Not counting a self-published source, the references generally aren't about the program's validity or notability. One newsletter criticism doesn't exactly count. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rational_Skepticism#help_with_conflict_of_interest_issue. Doczilla 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doczilla 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (Comment refactored by closing admin)[reply]

Delete. If no better and numerous sources are forthcoming, then delete as failing WP:N. -- Fyslee / talk 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Remove some ad-like sentences. Article has some good sources (from third party sites) but a few more wouldn't hurt. Seems notable given that a source or two comes from a government site, which definately is a third party. So, needs some work, but thats no reason to delete it. - Rjd0060 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe that this article establishes its subject's notability. The link within the article that I would particularly like to see (Ref #3) is a deadlink. This drove me to look for journal references; I am unable to find scholarly articles on this method via PubMed, and a Google Scholar search turned up a handful of underwhelming results. I then turned to the News, and the best I could find was this 2003 BBC article [7] that only tangentially mentions the program - this, in itself, does not establish notability. I generally do not see how this subject is notable based on my own, admittedly brief, search through academic and news sources. From a scientific point of view, I think it fails. From a pop-culture / many people are using it / the British gov't is referencing it point of view, it may be noteworthy. At any rate, this article is too long and goes into too much depth on its subject. It's not notable for the actual method itself (though that should be discussed briefly). If it's notable, it's notable for its popularity. Ante lan ^talk 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Read carefully, there is no evidence at all the UK government is using it, just that they have "reported a case study involving two learners". That's about as tangentially as one can get. . No sources, no evidence, no notability. Nothing besides their own web site to show how many people are using it. DGG (talk) 05:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-reporting of facts, and echos of corporate propaganda in minor journals. No real notability. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No scholarly sources, with a side of marketroid-speak. This article is also being discussed here. Skinwalker 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is readily apparent by exploring the sources which include newspapers and scholarly sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 05:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Notability Detail evidence is posted here: : Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability This includes:
- 1 Published Books Citing to Davis
  - 1.1 List compiled from Google book search (15 books)
  - 1.2 = Amazon Book Reports (46 books)
- 2 International Recognition of method founder, Ron Davis - (New Zealand Dyslexia Discovery Museum).
- 3 Outside Web Links and Interviews
- 4 Outside agencies looking at Davis Methods
  - 4.1 UK - Entry to Employment Programme [8]
  - 4.2 New Zealand Ministry of Education "Literature Review - An International Perspective" [9]
- 5 Media Reports
  - 5.1 From US: Denver Post, Report that school using Davis methods has highest test scores in state [10]
  - 5.2 From Canada: 6 articles listed, most recent from Vancouver Sun 11/3/07 - [11]
  - 5.3 From Israel: Jurusalem Post, 2001, Reprint posted at [12]
  - 5.4 From New Zealand: 2 articles, including one from magazine, "Parent and School Today" [13] (Posted on Cookie Munchers Charitable Trust web site)
  - 5.5 From the UK: 1998 article from The Independent: Education, Reprint posted at [Reprinted at http://www.dyslexia.com/library/clay.htm]
- 6 Educational Magazines - Reprint of article from "Special" (educational magazine geared to UK/SEN teachers): http://www.dyslexialink.co.uk/files/spec12.pdf
- 7 Internet Discussion -- representative links to discussion threads on International Dyslexia Association web site, demonstrating sustained interest from over 4 year period
- 8 Geographical Range of method -- link posted to New Zealand Dyslexia Foundation web site listing various providers of dyslexia therapies - shows high representation of Davis providers - http://www.dyslexiafoundation.org.nz/dyslexia_solproviders.html

Additionally, I have corrected the broken link to the abstract of the research journal article in note 3 of the main article; the full text is now posted at ftp://dyslexia.com/pub/Articles/Bacon2007_Reasoning.pdf

Re research articles sourced in main article:

* "The Effect of Davis Learning Strategies...." was published in refereed journal in 2001; abstract is available at Amazon. [14]

* Rene Engelbrecht, author of the master's thesis "The effect of the Ron Davis programme on the reading ability" is not associated with / affiliated with Davis organization - this could be verified by contacting her via her web site at http://www.rene-engelbrecht.co.za/

Editing of the main article by a neutral, unaffiliated person to comply with wikipedia standards would be very welcome. Armarshall 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding some of those sources (I will use your numbering on this page):

1, 1.1, 1.2, 2 - Citing Davis (the person) is quite different from citing the actual program, "Davis Dyslexia Correction." The man may well be notable even though this program may not be.

4.1 appears to be a recognition that specialists use this method - that is a valid start, but satisfying to me only with further context.

5.x

5.1 - Davis is mentioned in an image caption only. This is not significant coverage.

5.2 - This is a non-working link.

5.3 - This is the first and only article that I have seen that focuses on DDC.

5.4 - DDC is discussed at the end of the article, but is not its focus. This is not significant coverage.

5.5 - I am unable to independently confirm that this is a reprint of an article that was originally in a newspaper.

7 - Internet forums do not make for particularly reliable sources.

The Bacon paper that you have put up on the FTP refers to research by Davis, but not the "Davis Dyslexia Correction" itself. Unless the Engelbrecht paper is published in a refereed journal, I don't think it adds much credibility, either.

In the end, this is not enough to change my analysis. If I were to change my conclusion, it would be to stubbify the article and condense it down to one paragraph max to describe it as a pop culture, not academic, phenomenon, which is the extent of its potential notability. Ante lan ^talk 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the Vancouver Sun article. Davis's work (the book, The Gift of Dyslexia) equates with the method, because the book describes both the theory behind the method & the method in detail; and Davis has not done anything else of note other than develop the method.

I assume you are aware that most academic interventions for dyslexia are not supported by peer-reviewed research? If not, I would suggest that you download the recent New Zealand Literature Review and look at the chart of interventions and reported research or lack thereof. That is the latest effort of a governmental agency to evaluate the methods and the state of research into each that is available. Your interposition of a requirement that a method requires support of peer reviewed research would require deletion of the Orton-Gillingham article as well -- and exclusion of all references for any possible treatment of dyslexia. Armarshall 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. How about independently authored textbooks on treatment that make reference to the treatment method? I'm not out to delete this article per se, and would gladly switch my stance if I felt more comfortable with the strength of the sources. Ante lan ^talk 22:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the list of titles from Amazon & Google searches that I posted under #1 at Talk:Davis_Dyslexia_Correction/Notability. There were between 45-50 books listed. It's hard to know what books are text books, but the following titles seem like serious works:

* Dyslexia and Counselling by Rosemary Scott The Teaching Assistant's Guide: An essential textbook for foundation degree students by L Hammersley Teaching Maths to Pupils with Different Learning Styles by Tandi Clausen-May Dyslexia-Successful Inclusion in the Secondary School by Lindsay Peer Multilingualism, Literacy and Dyslexia: A Challenge for Educators by Lindsay Peer Counseling Troubled Teens and Their Families by Andrew, J Weaver Dyslexia by [T.R. Miles Dyslexia In Adults: A Practical Guide for Working and Learning by Gavin Reid Dyslexia: Theory and Good Practice by [ http://www.swan.ac.uk/research/centresandinstitutes/CentreforChildResearch/ Angela Fawcett] The Adult Dyslexic: Interventions and Outcomes by David McLoughlin Dyslexia and Effective Learning in Secondary and Tertiary Education by Morag Hunter-Carsch Study Skills and Dyslexia in the Secondary School: A Practical Approach by Mario Griffiths The following books contain detailed descriptions of the Davis method: The Bipolar Child: The Definitive and Reassuring Guide to Childhood's Most Misunderstood Disorder (Revised and Expanded Edition) by Demitri Md Papolos (Serious work geared to parents and professionals; at 318 describes a private school in Texas that uses "the clay techniques as describe in the Davis "Gift of Dyslexia" program.) Overcoming Dyslexia For Dummies (For Dummies Series) by Tracey Wood (page 95, and page 311) (Popular work; at page 93-95 lists "programs used predominantly in public schools" with "Davis Learning Strategies" listed on page 95, with this text, "You can take your child to a Davis center for for assessment and tutoring ... and now teachers can attend Davis workshops and buy Davis boxes (full of materials for small group instruction) to use in class with struggling readers"; at page 311, there are 4 paragraphs about "Davis Dyslexia Correction" in a chapter entitled "Ten Well-Known Dyslexia Programs and Treatments".) Right-Brained Children in a Left-Brained World: Unlocking the Potential of Your Add Child by Jeffrey Freed, (Popular work geared to parents, Davis mentioned on 8 pages; at page 111 describes the Davis program clay modeling word mastery procedures) Homeschooling the Child with ADD (or Other Special Needs): Your Complete Guide to Successfully Homeschooling the Child with Learning Differences by Lenore Colacion Hayes (At p 205 contains 3 paragraphs about the Davis program, describing it as an "unqualified favorite of many homeschooling families" and anecdotal reports from two parents. Upside-Down Brilliance, by Linda Kreger Silverman (This book is out of print, but it contains a summary of detailed report from a group of special ed teachers who implemented the program at their school, describing progress of 4th & 5th graders who were brought up to grade level and reintegrated into regular classrooms following the program) My World is not Your World, by Alison Hale, (at p. 134, autobiographical work with anecdotal report "I could barely read but to some extent this problem has been alleviated by following" the program developed by Davis.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Dyslexia Pocketbook (Teachers' Pocketbooks) by Julie Bennett (at p. 113 - Description of Davis method under title "Approaches based on perception" in chapter entitled "Current Approaches") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs) 04:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Also, see: Literature Review of dyslexia research and programs prepared by the New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007) (Look at table 2 beginning at p. 41; Davis is discussed at p. 42).

I don't think you should ignore the popular works in terms of assessing "notability" because these are often a primary source of practical information in the world of dyslexia remediation. Again, we are not talking about medical treatment- in the world of dyslexia treatment, parents generally need to go to private therapy or tutoring centers-- I could give you a list of some of the others if you want -- or you would find the "For Dummies" book to be a good reference if you look at some of the other methods listed on the pages that discuss the Davis program. Again, I'm now addressing the "Notability" issue, not weight of research. In the case of Davis, we know that at least two national government education departments (UK & New Zealand) feel it important enough to include in their overview of available treatment approaches. Armarshall 03:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Research Journal Citation I've found another research journal citation to Davis' work: Everatt, John (1997). "The abilities and disabilities associated with adult developmental dyslexia". Journal of Research in Reading. 20 (1). Blackwell-Synergy: 13–21. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00016.

Armarshall 16:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, an issue with this approach is that Davis is not the DDC. Another issue is that you might need dozens or even hundreds of citations to his work to demonstrate notability per WP:PROF if you're going to go via the academic notability route (and even then, you will establish his notability, not necessarily that of the DDC). Ante lan ^talk 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fyslee requested that I post evidence according to the [WP:N] standards, which is what I am doing. This is not a medical article - it is about an educational intervention, like Montessori method or Orton-Gillingham or Whole language. Armarshall 17:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I recognize that's what you are doing and I am glad that you are posting here. I don't mean to encourage you not to; I'm just trying to offer my interpretation of these sources. Ante lan ^talk 22:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like original research to me. Bombycil 16:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranulfism

An essay on real people being incorporated into historical fiction. This might just be worth salvaging. However this state of the article, a) has a title which is a pure neologism and b) has no links to discussions of the topic. So it is currently deletable as original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I think the point has merit, the article is just a rant. The name is made up, just 3 Google hits, 2 of which are Wikipedia. The author of the article doesn't even get his facts correct such as in the section on Rome. Vorenus and Pullo are not fictional characters, I believe they're actually the only leagionaries ever to have been mentioned in Rome's historical documents. Ben W Bell talk 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rant. Doczilla 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Non notable, as evident from a quick google search which has 0 hits aside from 2 Wikipedia and 1 Wikipedia mirror. - Rjd0060 04:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. —dust mite 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a fan of historcal fiction and I'm well aware of the practice this essay is talking about... but the name is completely made up and this essay seems filled with the author's POV. And I'm disgusted that the author doesn't seem to get the point of fiction. - Superlex 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, OR about a non-notable neologism. Doctorfluffy 03:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Four Lanterns

Article on a small chain of local takeaways. While the article does provide sources it does not asert any notability and they appear trivial in nature, which is the primary criterion from WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a PR wire to get a company's name out there possibly applies, -- in short, nothing that proves its notability. Vintagekits 20:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination wasn't transcluded correctly onto the AFD log; it's fixed now. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, does read slightly like an advertisement, and the contents are trivia-like....or should I just say "per nom". - Rjd0060 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a wide spread, up & coming retaurant, with venues all over Ireland. Also it is much more than a local chipper.--Hiltonhampton 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "up and coming" - its had the same number of outlets for years, "all over Ireland" - not really its a very localised chain, 3 in County Donegal and 1 in Sligo. But get me wrong, being from Sligo Town, I love and appricate the place, I've grew up with it, scoffed after Equinox in it, fought outside it etc etc etc - the only thing is that its not really notable is it!--Vintagekits 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete without prejudice. A7, unremarkable companies. When the reliable secondary sources are here, no objection to recreation. Martijn Hoekstra 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as all three external links in that article are examples of "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Andrwsc 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rockpocket 20:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS 20:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early Bird (Ashley Brodhead's album)

There seems to be no verifiable evidence that this artist or album exists. Dougie WII 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [articles created by same user regarding same artist whose existance (let alone notability) can't be confirmed]:

An admin needs to look at each and every article and edit by this username, they all seem to be hoaxes. Dougie WII 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Seem to be hoaxes, cannot find any relevant results on google. Links supplied on one of the articles don't even mention the title. - Rjd0060 04:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete of all. i have speedied these hoax articles before now and the user has evidently since recreated them. investigate user's other articles and WP:SALT if necessary. tomasz. 13:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The author keeps removing the AfD tags from the Touch and Sober articles. I guess it doesn't matter since the discussion is still here (?) - Dougie WII 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yeh, the discussion will remain, but one shouldn't really do that. i've reinstated them. tomasz. 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to The Elder Scrolls--JForget 02:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skooma

Non-notable fictional drug from a videogame. Merging would usually be the solution per WP:FICT, but that idea was rejected on the talk page. There was an attempt to redirect it to the main article, but that was reverted. Deletion is the next option. Masaruemoto 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect and protect the redirect). No assertion of notability, no sources, nothing that makes it notable outside of the games. TJ Spyke 02:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the game's article (The Elder Scrolls). Protect the redirect based on previous reversion. Doczilla 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Elder Scrolls per above. (Comment: At last, an AfD that actually followed WP:FICT's guidelines of trying to merge first. *happy sigh*) —Quasirandom 04:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --Voidvector 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Redirect as optional. per nom, Not even a main plot device in game. Kudos to Masaruemoto for following WP:FICT and rather than lazily slapping it in the Afd. If all fiction article nominators practice this, Afdland will be less gloomy.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above, and if anyone feels like doing so, transwiki to the UESPWiki. --Explodicle 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fictional medicines and drugs. —dust mite 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a minor item in the whole scheme of Morrowind. Not even worth a redirect. -- Whpq 17:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it is featured in Oblivion too, slightly more prominently. --Explodicle 19:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Only-tatu

The result was Speedy delete, CSD A7. Tijuana Brass 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable Somethingvacant 02:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged as CSD A7. Masaruemoto 02:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 04:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

AfDs for this article:

Article is a violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. The subject is entirely non-notable and the related "case" is non-notable. No changes were made as a result of this death, the sentences administered to the perpetrators did not attract any controversy, no changes were made to Police procedure. The only references to this death are from Canberra, while the Capital, is still a very small city in Australia. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the nominator I contend this non notable article violates wikipedia's policy against memorial pages. Previous discussions have focussed on the argument that the "case" is notable. Now that a significant amount of time has passed we see in hindsight that this "case" is not notable at all. No policy changed as a result of this death. No procedures changed as a result of this death. No controversy occurred with the sentence of the offenders. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article has 45 references all from reliable sources. The coronial inquest has not yet reported so it is premature to say that there have been no changes to procedures. I would anticipate that there will be considerable changes when the Coroner reports. Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - A person whose death attracts widespread media attention - even primarily local media attention - is often considered notable: see, e.g., Jennifer Strange or Joe Cinque. I think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is meant as a caution to friends and family members who want to use Wikipedia immortalize a non-notable decedent; that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. --Hyperbole 02:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I don't think WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is directed at articles such as these that clearly pass WP:V. It's meant to prevent "RIP Johnny, he wrapped his truck around a pole"-type articles. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any such case can have a lot of sources. Notability does not appear to be established. Doczilla 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to be notable in Canberra (the 8th biggest city in the nation). The article is well written and sourced. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It's tragic, but local notability doesn't mean it applies elsewhere. Doczilla 03:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This "locality" is Canberra, the capital city of Austrlia. An event or person does not have to be notable everywhere in the world. Recurring dreams 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely a memorial article. The death was tragic, but just one more traffic accident. No lasting effects on society. Edison 03:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, memorial, per above. --Astroview120mm 04:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article is fully referenced and was a notable event for Canberra. It does not have to apply elsewhere - please remember that Wikipedia is not paper and there's room for fully-referenced well-written articles like this one. And this debate has been had numerous times, so it's bad faith by the nominator to try it again when this debate has been had time and time again. JRG 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's certainly not bad faith to revisit an AfD after more than a year, when a once-current event can be viewed through the lens of hindsight. You might want to re-read WP:AGF. --Hyperbole 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOT#MEMORIAL reads: "Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered." I don't see how that applies to this article. Do we contend that all of the media coverage was for the benefit of friends and relatives? Or that they are the authors of the article? Maxa megalon 2000 06:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment. No one is suggesting that the local newspapers were written by friends or relatives. You have not put forth any arguments how this person is notable. Being run over is not a criteria for notability. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if there is such a thing. An extremely well referenced and well written article which clearly demonstrates notability. Even if the she did not meet the criteria for WP:BIO, the topic of her death is sufficient to warrant an article in its own right. Assize 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough references and local notability to justify this page. Maybe some minor trimming to the victim's bio at the beginning of the article that does read a little like a memorial though.Alberon 10:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep And I think the references need to be tidied up. A lot are duplicated. Mr pand 13:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This incident, as the article makes clear, caused widespread rethinking of police car chase procedures around the entire country, and was the subject of massive media attention. How many times do we have to go through these bogus deletion attempts? Rebecca 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes I am a Canberran but as per Rebecccca the case was very notable, subject to extensive and ongoing reporting by the media. I am concerned at the number of times this has come back to AfD. --Golden Wattle ^talk 00:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable, this is not a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, article is well written and referenced. I believe those crying "nn delete" for articles like this are ungrateful for the effort people put into them - WP:IDONTCARE is not a reason to delete them. Reswobslc 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I would prefer this article to be kept, I don't think it is fair to say that those who think the subject is not notable are ungrateful for the work of other editors. Expressing an opinion on notability casts no reflection on either the subject of the article or its editors. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if there was an article on Police persuit in Australia then we could see the impact of the Clea Rose accident on that topic. So far every reference comes back to the Canberra Times, or the local ABC News coverage with one exception being the AAP coverage of the runner who was "inspired by the accident". This seems to have been of local interest only. Would change to KEEP if someone can demonstrate that this incident adjusted procedures for police persuit anywhere other than the ACT.Garrie 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still getting press now, even more than two years after the accident happened. It comes up - both here and interstate - every time the issue of police chases arises in the media. Furthermore, it provoked rethinking of police procedures around the country, though I'm not sure of the extent of any concrete changes, as I haven't actually read up on developments since the start of the coronial inquiry more than a year ago. I'm sick of the bloody-minded attitude of certain folks here - what on earth is the harm on having an article on a really controversial incident that provoked more press attention than, say, most members of parliament would have in their entire careers? Rebecca 02:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The events surrounding Clea Rose's death have sparked extensive debate about police producdues, and this is well documented in the article. As such, this is an article on a notable topic and not a memorial page. As for it being "of local interest only", Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia so if a topic is notable and covers an issue of interest to a city of over 300,000 people there's no reason not to include it. The Canberra Times and ABC news are the two main media sources in Canberra, so there's nothing at all wrong with using them heavily in Canberra-related articles - indeed, not using them would be a major shortcoming. --Nick Dowling 10:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Clea Rose case and Redirect Clea Rose to that article, rather than vice-versa as is the situation now. It is the event that's notable, not the person. From WP:BIO#Specific examples of sources:

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted.

I think that applies here. Phil Bridger 11:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The extensive media coverage of Clea Rose in multiple reliable sources cited in Clea_Rose#References_and_notes clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person persuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. While WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is often misinterpreted to imply that "subjects whose notability is derived solely from the manner of their deaths are not notable for Wikipedia's purposes", the plain language of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL clarifies its purpose
Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
Thus, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL is a mere restatement of the applicability of Wikipedia's notability guidelines to deceased subjects, and does actually furnish independent grounds for deletion. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer animated films (United States)

Unnecessary fork from the superior List of computer-animated films which can already be sorted by country, so no merging is necessary (the information in this list exists in List of computer-animated films). According to the talk page, this list was created when an editor couldn't get consensus for his proposed changes, so he created this redundant fork instead. Masaruemoto 01:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Looking through the talk page and article history, I don't see any suggestion that Cnota was acting in bad faith, and in some ways I prefer the layout of this article to the other, but we really shouldn't have fully-redundant lists like this. --Hyperbole 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no suggestion the creator acted in bad faith, I was just paraphrasing what another editor told me. These are his exact words; "(Cnota's) ideas to make this page complicated and unwieldy were rejected by the other editors... he apparently decided to create a new page of his own". Masaruemoto 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The list is redundant. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Doczilla 03:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's redundant to a better article Mandsford 12:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to List of computer-animated films. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—would it be redundant for me to say that this is redundant? —dust mite 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barry Bonds' home runs by parks

The article consists of indiscriminate information, which can all be found on several other sites in their entirety, anyway. Ksy92003(talk) 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate info. Doczilla 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above (WP:NOT). - Rjd0060 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a bunch of indiscriminate info. This is statistics about his home runs. Though WP:NOT#STATS says that "long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles." But this list is not a long and sprawling list. I think it is encyclopedic considering his baseball career. Chris! _ct 05:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment– I also question the notability of the location of his home runs. That, as well as the "indiscriminate information" claim I made earlier, doesn't seem notable to me. Ksy92003(talk) 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how is the location of his home runs not notable? They all happened in ballparks that have Wikipedia articles. I can understand why one might think that this is an indiscriminate list. But I don't understand how this is not notable. Chris! _ct 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about it this way. Is a home run at Dolphins Stadium any more significant than a home run at Minute Maid Park or Jacobs Field? Ksy92003(talk) 06:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at each home run this way, then of course the home run is insignificant. That is why I group them in a table since the home run record all together is notable. Chris! _ct 06:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'Huh?' he said in a confused tone." Sorry, but I still personally fail to see how a home run can be more significant in just because he hit it in a different ballpark. A home run is a home run, no? Ksy92003(talk) 14:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand. Yes, a home runs is a home run. But the list never implies his home run in AT&T Park is more important than his homer runs at other park. It basically records the numbers of home runs he hit by park. Chris! _ct 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not only saying that a home run in one park is more significant than the other, but also that the specific location of the home runs (whether they are more significant in certain parks or not) isn't notable, anyway. Ksy92003(talk) 02:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am mystified by your comment. The article never suggests that a home run hit at a specific location is more important than one hit at some other locations. I can understand if you think that the list is unencyclopedic. But to say that it asserts some kind of notability on each home run or each location is hard for me to understand. Chris! _ct 00:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I'll try to explain it again. Let's drop my comment that a home run hit in stadium A isn't notable than stadium B for the moment. I don't personally believe that the location of the home runs is notable information (dropping the [in]significance of the different locations). It doesn't seem like an encyclopedic list. Ksy92003(talk) 01:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Barry Bonds. Pure trivia, and one thing Wikipedia isn't about is articles made up entirely of trivia. There have also been lists of all 714 of Babe Ruth's home runs (date and park) and the first 715 of Hank Aaron's (and probably the last 39) runs. These would be interesting trivia, but not encyclopedic. This is even less useful than a list of Barry's first 755 or 762 homers. Fans will note that Barry hit more than half of his runs at home at Pittsburgh and San Francisco. Somebody is probably trying to figure out why he hit fewer home runs at American League parks. The effort is appreciated, I know the link to TSN website won't always work, perhaps this can be an addition to Barry Bonds, but sorry, this is not a stand alone article. Mandsford 12:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, this list was in the Barry Bond article and was deleted. I just retrieved the same list to create a new article. So I don't think merging to Barry Bonds again is a good idea. Chris! _ct 01:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good grief. Is every permutation of statistics worthy of a new page. Besides Hank Aaron is the record holder. Decoratrix 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly covered by WP:NOT. Vegaswikian 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. CitiCat^♫ 04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Quest

Non-notable commercial. A mention on Cheese (character) could work, but not much more. RandomOrca2 01:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruft at it's worst Delete This is a Secret ^account 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cruft. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Doczilla 03:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor, non encyclopedic. digitalemotion 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am amazed at the crappiness of this article. Delete per nom! L337 kybldmstr 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fancruft indeed. JJL 15:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends as it is related to this article. As this article stands, it is non-notable and should not exist on its own.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. CitiCat^♫ 00:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Barletta

Articles doesn't follow the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines WP:NOTE Wikihonduras 23:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does this source help her cause? I am troubled by the idea of deleting a non-English language topic, you know, bias and all... Fee Fi Foe Fum 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is just a table of results. This is the only mention of here name there: "Maria-Jose Arechavaleta, Uruguay, def. Sofia Barletta, Honduras, 6-1, 6-0". Orginally the person's name was listed in her high school's article Escuela_Internacional_Sampedrana as 1 of 3 prominent alumni. It was mentioned there as a semi-pro tennis player who was a student at the highschool. She has since been removed from the list of prominent alumni, under a similar argument as this one. Wikihonduras 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Those USA Today results are from the Fed Cup, so it's the same as the external link provided on her article (her Fed Cup Profile). Here is the issue as I perceive it: In the WP:NOTE on athletes, the criteria stated is Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis. But, as with the Davis Cup (the male equivalent), players in the Fed Cup are not awarded prize money and many professional players do not participate. They may be paid an appearance fee or a bonus for winning by their respective governments and/or tennis associations, but that's up to those independent entities. So in this case, whether a Fed Cup appearance constitutes professional participation may be a consideration. --Sesameball^Talk 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't this the "world cup" of tennis in the female side? This surely must count like a professional tournament which makes her a professional player. Chupu 04:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC) This also counts as she is a member of the Honduran national tennis squad. What difference does it make if a player that plays in the national Congo soccer team who doesn't play in their premier league with this? Chupu 04:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not a professional tournament for reasons I've stated. Certainly it could be argued that the Fed Cup is a professional-level tournament because of the involvement of WTA players, but Honduras is in the lowest tier of the Americas qualifying and it's unlikely Barletta competed with anyone of WTA caliber. Also, in regard to your soccer comparison - it is my recollection that most national team players of any country only have individual articles if they also play professionally. I suppose the question becomes this: Do we want to support the creation of individual player articles such that national team articles are the only pointer to those player articles, and the only thing in those articles is the sentence "X was born on Y and played for Z." What purpose does that serve? Why isn't simply being on the national team page enough? We sure don't have any other secondary sources for these people. --Sesameball^Talk 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Although the line between amateurism and proffesionalism vary from sport to sport. Being this line less and less relevant today than it was in the past, it could be hardly argued that a participant who has a symbolic participation in a competition which has a cash purse, would be then considered a professional. I believe that is the intent of the guideline of notability for athletes. To differentiate athletes who may a casual participation in a tournament to others who sit at the top of their sport and are remunerated for their participation. Wikihonduras 23:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate article, unsourced, about insufficiently notable person. Doczilla 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom doesn't question that she participated in Fed Cup, just notability. Therefore, even if nom is correct about it not being professional, it would count as highest amateur level competition. Would be nice if it were fleshed out more, perhaps refer to the appropriate projects? Horrorshowj 06:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being a top amateur competition, that doesn't necesarily make the person participating in it notable. Some competitions are the top events in many sports yet they are open to basically anyone and many take that opportunity. The Boston Marathon gathers around 28,000 runners (that classified for it), arguably the top event in its category, yet we wouldn't think that each and every runner is notable enough just for that fact alone to have its own Wikipedia page. Same would go for events like the US Open (golf, tennis, etc). It seems like this type of profile is more proper to go into a blog or some other personal page than Wikipedia. Wikihonduras 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Desperate Housewives cast members

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relevant list, however structure reorganization and some clean-up work are needed. @pple complain 13:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Desperate Housewives cast members

Another list of people who appeared on desperate housewives, once or twice. This is getting crazy how many of these lists am I going to find. Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc 21:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN and WP:NOT. This is, indeed, getting rather silly. Stifle (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but restructure. Many series with large casts have lists. IrishLass0128 12:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup and beautify. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists are good (and appropriate) ways to bundle characters. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion is not cleanup; this is a list worth keeping. •97198 talk 11:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elite 07

Article describes a game project that is not notable. Pilotbob 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 13:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete project for a computer hockey game mod that would allow players to switch teams around. Not notable in the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge with NHL 07 Hansonc 20:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to assert what makes this fan made mod notable. TJ Spyke 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NOTE. L337 kybldmstr 04:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. Editors interest in this content should merge it as appropriate W.marsh 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation relay

Contested PROD deletion restored. But the original PROD reasoning still stands. Activity on a non-notable web community is not itself notable. No other evidence of notability is given. TexasAndroid 12:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a game made out of a well know problem in computer science, regarding language translation. There has been a whole bundle of then which i've seen through stumble. scope_creep 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, no article. NN online forum activity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into telephone game (which some racist has renamed "Chinese whispers") or Babel fish or online translation. I've seen this before, usually as part of e-mails and bulletin boards. Short version is that if you translate a block of text from English to, say, Spanish, then back to English, back to Spanish, back to English, the eventual result is noticeably different. The article here proposes that the example would give some insight into the culture of Spanish speakers. Interesting, yes. And it does cite to two sources. It's own article? It's not much different than the spellcheck game that people played before there was Babel fish. Mandsford 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to telephone game per Mandsford. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to telephone game. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to keep it, but it seems that the article currently is pretty much concerned with ZBB relays only. There used to be a different and in my opinion better version of the article, but it appears to be gone. I wouldn't object against a merge either, under the condition that the operation is performed properly (i.e. not merely a mention of the phenomenon, to avoid valuable information getting lost). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zookan ZZZAP!

A not notable 'television' series that ran from August 2007 and seems, in fact, to have only ever appeared on YouTube and other video sharing sites.[15]. Malcolmxl5 12:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the following line gave me a laugh: "since it had apalling ratings, it was take off Youtube". I can only imagine something so bad even YouTube didn't want it. In any case, delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS, etc. Note: voters should be aware not to confuse this with ZZZap!, which actually was a real kids' TV series and unrelated to this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Andrew. TJ Spyke 02:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Starblind. I also have to wonder what kind of show is so bad to get pulled from Youtube. Doctorfluffy 08:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I don't think the show exists. Dalekusa 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekusa (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Manger

Does not meet notability standards set forth in WP:BIO Pilotbob 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 04:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Nom. Edward321 20:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Caknuck 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sin radio

This article is about a non-notable college online radio station. There are only self-published sources as references. 63 Ghits, mostly wikipedia mirrors, and directory listings. In May, I had redirected it to Southampton Solent University, with an edit summary "redirect Unsourced vanity article on non-notable student radio station set up in 2003 with no notability asserted." but someone disagreed. Thus I am seeking consensus. Ohconfucius 01:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree. --Curuxz 10:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you must, else delete. Student radio station with no claims of notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of police officers

Unmaintable list, way too many police officers, with no criteria in place. Better serves as a category. Delete This is a Secret ^account 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an indiscriminate list of information, and perhaps could be considered a loosely-associate list. Either way, this list could never be completed or maintained. And there is already a category of police officers. Useight 02:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename - The first section, "Notable historical police personalities" - contains absolutely no useful information and should be removed once all the articles it links to have been put in a "police officers" category. The second section, "Notable police officers better known in other walks of life", seems like a valid and interesting list. I suggest we rename the article "List of police officers better known in other walks of life" and preserve the second half. --Hyperbole 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the category does just fine. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete indiscriminate list. Doczilla 03:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the second half. Make sure that everybody pointed to in the first half is in Category:Police officers. Anthony Appleyard 06:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the second half, delete the first half, as per Hyperbole and Anthony, since it is not indiscriminate information. As to first half, "the category does just fine" is correct. It's unfortunate that these two unrelated lists are grouped in the same article. I think we should be more careful in evaluating articles about police officers and other unsung heroes, who get less attention than actors and politicians. Mandsford 12:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorify/delete per nom. Nested categories work better for large sets of information like this. shoy (^words _words) 16:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed the order of the list around, so that it doesn't start with the part that is already a category, and moved the title to something else. It's not fair to judge this article by the first half. Mandsford 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorify per nom. —dust mite 17:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize - The second half is slightly less indiscriminate than the first half, but they're both pretty indiscriminate. I mean, the second half puts Wyatt Earp (famous lawman from the Old West), Allan Pinkerton (founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency), J. D. Tippit (shot dead by Lee Harvey Oswald), and Charles Moose (police chief of Montgomery County, Maryland, during the D.C. sniper shootings) all on the same list. Much better suited for categories and sub-categories. --Hnsampat 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Categorify This is unmainanable and should be deleted. A category should be created for notable police officers with articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's so incomplete, but I suggest deletion and categorifying per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a taxonomy to describe this is pointless as it would include Category:Police officers who become notable sportsman, Category:Police officers who became notable politicians, etc; having this list accompany the current Category:Police officers system is a useful navigational aid. John Vandenberg 04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others said, this works better as a category. I don't see how it's a useful navigational aid, since I don't see how any of the information is useful other than the links to the individual biography articles.Noroton 22:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As WP:NOT states, articles should not be an indiscriminate list of internal links. As it stands, that is what it is. There is no reason why this would not be better served as a category. SorryGuy 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmjow Jeagerjaques

This is a non-notable character that only has information provided from the primary source. There is no chance of real world information being added to appease WP:FICT, so the topic does not need to be covered here. It can always be "transwikied" to Wikia. TTN 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikiing is appropriate for material that neither requires an article or necessitates anything but small mention in another article. A character such as Grimmjow does not fit those parameters. Merging is a far more appropriate option, and should have been proposed instead of this. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: 1. Why do you say there is "no chance" of real world information? 2. Why do you propose deleting instead of merging into the relevant character list? —Quasirandom 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary note, since I didn't quite read the whole nom. The no real-world info is BS, as he has tracks on a character album, which is real-world info. May be only slight info, but it's there nonetheless, and establishes information for the character beyond his status within the primary work. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quasirandom: There has been no assertion of notability through reliable sources, and as there has been an effort to improve the article, there definitely has been a search for it. To be more specific, unless it is actually shown, there is no reason to speculate that it exists at this point. That is to counter the argument that this can be cleaned up rather than removed. It can be deleted or merged; it doesn't really matter. It's just easiest to go for the harshest outcome instead of trying to play around with the fans. Though, I would just rather see it deleted to get a real baring on what needs to be covered.

Someguy: That is not real world information that can actually build an article. It is on the same level as a voice actor, so it has no relevance in establishing notability. Do you also realize how many characters have theme songs? It's not very uncommon. TTN 02:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not my point, nor a relevant one. it is still real-world info, no matter how common, which makes your original assertion incorrect. Furthermore, AFD does not exist for cleanup or for you to make a point, which you admit to by saying that you've done this for that express purpose in your last line to Quasirandom. You want cleanup, you tag, you don't use this process to achieve that end. you've made absolutely no attempt in that regard. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is in the same league as voice actors, which we do not count towards article building real world information. If we did, most characters would essentially have real world information. As I said, while I do not feel like dealing with fans, I would actually like to see this deleted because it does not belong on the site, and I really don't think we need to cover it beyond maybe two sentences in a more condensed list. We place too much emphasis on covering all characters rather than just the key ones. TTN 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not in the same vein as voice actors. It is in the same vein as toy lines, or other secondary products created and sold in relation to the media. As for the rest of that, that's your opinion, and your attempt to use AfD to avoid dealing with "fans" (a ridiculous assertion) is hardly a valid reason for outright deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot hold an article (neither can any other generic merchandise), so it is the same thing. It would be like trying to assert that appearing in video games is also enough. The article has no article building real world information (regardless of the state of the theme songs, it is not enough to substantiate an article), so it does not belong here. My rational is that it needs to be deleted, but if we end up with merge, I'll live with it. Regardless of how you view my nomination, it is quite valid, so if you want to continue this, feel free to drop by my talk page. TTN 02:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still find your reasons for nominating this in the first place completely contrary to the purpose of this process, but I'll let it go. Next time, however, I hope you at least try to improve a page, because I know you've taken fire for not doing so before. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not TTN's job to go hunting for something that might be there, without having something to suggest that there might be significant real world information (note the word significant, as in, not just any real world information, but something significant.) -- Ned Scott 20:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish people would stop using "no real world information" as shorthand for "no information that establishes real-world notability" -- it's not the same thing and only confuses the issue when there are other, non-primary sources. I was going to vote merge, but Someguy0830's right that the nominator pretty much admits this AfD is to make a point, so it's keep instead as a borderline bad-faith nomination. If you really and honestly believe in holding articles to WP:FICT, hold yourself to the guideline as well and tag articles for merging instead of jumping to what itself calls the last resort of deletion. —Quasirandom 03:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional argument for my Keep vote: Someguy0830 has shown that there are ways to establish notability. Tag it for the appropriate cleanup and give the editors who know the subject best a chance to use them. —Quasirandom 16:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Grimmjow's pretty notable. After all he did fight Ichigo 3 times and has his own character album. Hell Pyro 04:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason to delete Grimmjow's page. Firstly, he is an overall major supporter, like how Renji was when he was first introduced. Secondly, if any, Nnoitra's page or Ulquiorra's page should be deleted or merge due to stubbiness, not Grimmjow. Thirdly, you TTN, haven't tried to clean up Grimmjow's article in any way, but if you have done so beforehand and see whether its worth keeping or not, I'm sure many others would agree with you for valid reasons. --Hanaichi 09:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to provide evidence of notability outside of this comic series. There is no real-world reason for keeping this article.--Gavin Collins 09:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or transwiki to Bleach wikia, whether tracks featuring the character is real-world data or not, there is no secondary information listed. And while overlooking the page, I noticed that a lot of it is unreferenced, such as his physique comparing to a character from Zombie Powder appears to be original content. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For an attempt at sources, none of which I can read in the least, but a few of which seem good: some sort of figurines, one of the games with Grimmjow featured heavily, I suppose you paint these, keychains, I doubt this is reliable but I point it out regardless, shirt, wallet?, and even his funny outfit. I do realize those are mostly products of some variety, but sorting through Japanese Google hits by website name is hit and miss at best. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 11:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Things like voice actors, cameos, video games, and other merchandise are technically real world information, but alone they cannot be used to build an article. They are essentially filler material to help pack down development and reception information. Without setting up the "girders" (i.e. the connection between the similar character if correctly sourced), you have nothing to support the "bricks" (the above information). TTN 16:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They cannot build a whole article, no, but they can establish notability, which is the part that most requires real-world sourcing. —Quasirandom 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merchandise does not establish notability. You need production and reception information to do that. If it did, many characters would be considered instantly notable. The most you could place in the article from those sources is "Grimmjow has various toys and other merchandise, such as X, Y, and Z. He also appears as a playable character in various Bleach video games." That is the opening of a reception/popular culture section, nothing more. TTN 17:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You don't consider the existence of a character album to be notable? Would real world reception to this album or to the character itself, if found, satisfy your threshold of notability? If not, I feel that a merge to List of Bleach hollows would be more appropriate than outright deletion... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gavin Collins. Doctorfluffy 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article describes the plot and the character of a highly popular and notable anime and manga series, currently airing in America. A small rewrite may be in order, but deleting it is overkill. dposse 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until enough real-world content is found to warrant an independent article. Regardless if the album is real world information or not, that information doesn't justify the in-depth plot summary currently on the article. -- Ned Scott 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I second the statements of Hanaichi and GhostStalker. Big red01027 07:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Hanaichi on this. No reason to delete. RedEyesMetal 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the upcoming plot moves forward this entry will be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.41.31 (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With the current discussion going on at List of Bleach characters, you can clearly see that Grimmjow has 5 votes keep, 0 votes merge. So, regarding WP:CON, none of the editors wish to actually merge/delete Grimmjow's article. --Hanaichi 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the owner of the Bleach Wiki, I request that it be transwikied to Bleach Wiki, that way we don't lose important info, when the article could have EASILY been merged and the history kept intact.--TheUltimate3 02:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. —Hiding Talk 11:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Bleach hollows (with some trimming) and transwiki to the Bleach Wiki to preserve all the information. WP:FICT recommends characters failing notability to merged to articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which seems the best solution here. If reliable sources can be found then people could look into a split at some point in the future. (Emperor 16:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: That's right, we must delete this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nom. Grimmjow is a major character in at least 3 of the major arcs (initial siege of the city by arrancar, second siege to "snatch" orihime, and third the battle near the Las Noches). 252,000 hits on google. -- Cat ^chi? 22:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Wait and See Keep. Grimmjow is a major character and the upcoming character poll in December will further establish his notability within Bleach and his fanbase. He's expected to 1) take a very high ranking among tens of thousands of fans and b) remain a very important character for the duration of the manga. As a VG editor, I wonder if these anime topics can establish notability with much ease. Video games get the benefit of industry magazines and guaranteed reviews by major organizations. Some even pick up newspaper references and reviews. Anime, on the other hand, hardly enjoys these automatic avenues of secondary recognition, especially when the character in question has not been introduced in English publications or presentations yet. Deletion is premature. Zeality 03:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those kinds of magazines do exist in japan, the origin country of such shows. However the japanese are typicaly not native speakers of English. -- Cat ^chi? 13:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep per nom with Hanaichi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omghgomg (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the reasons Hanaichi mentioned -Twsl 11:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also for the same reasons mention by Hanaichi. Also given the reasons for the begining of the discusion there are alot of articles that i have found in wikipedia that also do not meet this "standars" and none of them have been tag for deltion. WhiteStrike 16:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply impossible to tag every single article that should be deleted at once. Also, the very nature of Wikipedia typically leads us to having many articles in need of improvement, and never is that an endorsement of their current condition. And no offense, but you want want to run your comments through a spellchecker before going off on article standards. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character is a major antagonist of the series. "Never" is incorrect: episodes with the character have not yet aired in the US and once they do secondary sources can be reasonably expected. Buspar 06:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources means we'll find real world information, or we'll find TV guide listings for those episodes? We are not sourcing what happened in the show, that has never been a problem, what we are looking for is (say it with me now) real world information. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real world information is what I was referring to - episode descriptions can be based on primary sources. Once this story arc airs on Adult Swim, anime magazines such as Anime Insider and others will run profiles on the various characters introduced, just as they have for other animes being broadcast on network TV. Since Grimmjow is one of the major combatants, it is reasonable to conclude he'll receive attention. Japanese secondary sources likely have info already, but those are difficult to use. If we had someone who could read Japanese right now, the article could sport a number of secondary sources with real world info. In time, equivalent English sources will be available. Therefore, this article meets the "Can it be perfect?" test, which is a good reason to keep. Buspar 06:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad then. -- Ned Scott 06:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, how many characters has that happened for? I would say that the characters of Dragon Ball and Naruto would receive coverage in English before any Bleach characters, yet all of them are in the same boat as this one. Not even the main Bleach characters have received any coverage, so why exactly does Grimmjow have a chance? And please do not use the "It's Japanese, so it's just because of the language barrier" argument. The actual case is that manga authors keep most of their details to themselves, only releasing very small, mostly trivial bits in interviews. The studios that make them are even more secure usually, as they do not really seem to care about things like commentary and other stuff. You'll need to give us an example through another character or this character to have any argument there. TTN 12:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not even the main Bleach characters have received any coverage It's clear that you haven't read any of the anime/manga trade magazines, have you? --Farix (Talk) 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I remember reading an extended article on the Bleach main characters in Newtype a few months ago, your "not received any coverage" line is false. The fact is that anime broadcast on Adult Swim has received significant coverage in anime magazines over the years. For example, Anime Insider did extensive coverage of the FMA cast. So there's clear evidence that coverage will come when the episodes air. I recommend you explore what secondary sources exist for anime episodes and their publication histories. You don't appear to be very familiar with anime media or its industry, which is probably why you made the incorrect statement about "no chance of real world information" in your AfD proposal. Buspar 08:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about significant real world coverage, not an in-depth description of the character as it appears in the anime or manga. If it is the latter, they are being described, not covered. If I'm wrong, feel free to add some sources to the Bleach articles, which are currently void of real world information (except for a trivial little flash movie). The same goes for the Fullmetal Alchemist characters. TTN 12:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Really, is there any reason what so ever to delete Grimmjow, or merge him? I can understand deleteing mergeing Kon's page to others full list or Nnoitra's, but Grimmjow's is just stupidity. Grimmjow is a important character and, who cares if his article is kinda short, many are short on Bleach, like Shinji's for example, but he is important like Grimmjow so there is really no reason to delete him ethier.Ultimaterasengan 14:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Pollard

Unreferenced biography on a retired police officer. Article asserts that he's notable, but doesn't really say what for, other than with weasel words and one unsourced incident. Was previously marked as a speedy, but that was denied due to the assertion of notability. JuJube 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nonnotable. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable obituary.Alberon 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assertion of notability is tenuous at best. —dust mite 17:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums and galleries

A list of museums and galleries which Britannica finds the most "notable". First of all, it's POV, because it's an arbitrary list, there could be other museums which could be considered notable. Also, because of its arbitrariness, Britannica might have a copyright for the selection. Other such lists have been deleted because of such copyright concerns. bogdan 00:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Redundant to the superior List of museums, subjective criteria and possible copyvio, if Encyclopædia Britannica went to the trouble of compiling this list based on their own research and editorial judgment, we can't just copy and paste it to Wikipedia. Masaruemoto 01:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant and probably a copyvio. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d(۝
♀
▲) 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the above. Bearian 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an AFD that has been visited by a number of single purpose IP's and near single-use IP's. Eg: 24.170.224.21 (talk · contribs), 75.208.31.63 (talk · contribs), 160.126.10.167 (talk · contribs). For those not used to Wikipedia, AFD is not a vote, but a forum to consider openly, whether an article meets or does not meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. In particular, the number of "keep/delete" presented, means less than the insight those views can add to the discussion. Some basic principles apply to AFD:

By default, if a matter has "significant mention in multiple reliable sources", it is presumed that it is notable (Wikipedia:Notability refers). This is a default only - many many things are in the news which do not merit an encyclopedia article.
In particular, not every murder does, even some fairly well known murders do not. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not ("WP:NOT") sets some limits on this -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and especially, even events that gain news exposure and discussion of a transient or brief nature, are regularly not considered encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a list of everything that happens in the news.
Wikipedia does not measure prospective articles in terms of what is "interesting", what is "useful" (WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL refer), or even in terms of what would make some people feel better or worse. Likewise what a specific user of Wikipedia may have thought of it is also not relevant (WP:OR almost totally excludes editorial personal views and personal feelings as being an invalid basis for editorial decisions). It measures long term historical notability as an encyclopedia (WP:NOT refers), rather than say, social utility, news archival value, lessons to be learned, and the like.
Many murders make the media. But most lack lasting historical notability (WP:NOT#NEWS refers). As a sad fact of life, a killing is not notable per se. Even though many killings get significant media attention, it is usually transient and "just one of many". Sad but true.
The sole feature of this killing that is described as notable beyond the norm is that the victim was 1/ lured to their death, and 2/ it was the first such on Craigslist.

In this AFD, the majority of views concur that there is not significant notability for an encyclopedia article. There is one argument made to be considered, for a "keep", which is: "This story was featured front page on nearly every major news website in the U.S.A.; it is unique in that it sets a new precedent for craigslist, a worldwide website which was previously unaffected by events like this. It's the first recorded case of someone premeditating a murder set in motion via a phony help-wanted ad."

Murders where the victim is lured (by personal discussion, words posted online, false claim of money, or however) are in fact not uncommon, and are probably not especially unusual or notable per se. Essentially this argument makes the case that this murder is notable for being "the first to involve a lure by advertizing in significant venue/location X" where location X is a specific "worldwide website".

However to my mind this is not a compelling argument. (First murder where victim lured by advert in New York Times? First murder where victim lured by advert in Washington Post? First murder where victim lured by discussion on MySpace? First murder where victim lured by advert in Pravda? First murder where victim lured by advert in Monster.com?) In other words, the sole feature of this case that is unique is the mere venue or similar of the advert... and as a matter of communal norm, that just doesn't seem likely to confer notability.

In that regard, AFD discussion of more experienced users (ie after setting aside WP:SPA comments) also seems to support it's likely not to be notable, and also the incident has already (as noted) been listed in the main Craigslist.com article which is probably sufficient mention.

Commonsense application of policy, communal norms, and AFD consensus strongly agree.

Craigslist Killing

Non-notable murder case, Wikipedia is not a news story Delete This is a Secret ^account 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I would hardly call this "unique" and certainly not notable. —dustmite 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete per above. I've never heard of this. --Astroview120mm 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." --24.170.224.21 09:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable case. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because you haven't heard of something doesn't mean it isn't notable. This is a case of someone using an online help-wanted ad to accomplish a pre-meditated murder. This article needs expanded, not deleted. --24.170.224.21 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I heard of it, it was mentioned on CNN, but same with hundreds and hundreds of murder cases every year, wikipedia isn't news. This is a Secret ^account 03:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow that kind of argument for keeping this article definitely shows why it should be deleted and why these anonymous IPs do not know anything about notability. .:DavuMaya:. 20:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing here or in the article sets it above the thousands of other tragic events that don't qualify for encyclopedic entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doczilla (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Explain to me the difference between this and 2005_Dubbo_New_Years_Eve_Riot or Christina_Becker. What sets the New Years Eve Riot or Christina Becker "above the thousands of other tragic events that don't qualify for encyclopedic entries."? --24.170.224.21 04:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I prodded those two, if the prods get removed, I will AFD them. This is a Secret ^account 04:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Prod instructions usaully include notifying the original author of the impending deletion. hbdragon88 07:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not required, though. JuJube 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I already notified the author the moment I initiated the first deletion process over a week ago. .:DavuMaya:. 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia isn't a breaking news source, and there is no indication this is a notable case. --Core desat 04:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story was featured front page on nearly every major news website in the U.S.A.; it is unique in that it sets a new precedent for craigslist, a worldwide website which was previously unaffected by events like this. It's the first recorded case of someone premeditating a murder set in motion via a phony help-wanted ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.31.63 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Summarized version already in the main article--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge w/ another craiglist article. 203.220.107.23 11:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Move/Merge with Katherine Ann Olson It saddens me that people would want to simply throw this out the window, or feel it's ok that this article be condensed into a one-line summary in another article. --160.126.10.167 13:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - You can expand the one-liner if you want. Just keep it short (~5 sentences) so as not to overwhelm the article and sourced.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I am tired of this anonymous IP. You don't know the family or friends you have nothing to be sad over. You don't live here. I would be sad if every heinous event on the news became WP content because people have some delusional need to encyclopedize it. Your viewpoint is respected but a lot of consensus was reached before you came into the fray. Do not make changes to the article or remove the deletion process until proper discussion is over. .:DavuMaya:. 21:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not wikinews. On the slim chance this is kept, it needs to be renamed, as the current title suggests Craigslist is somehow responsible for the murder. To put it another way, if the classified ad had been in the New York Times instead of Craigslist, we wouldn't title it "The New York Times Killing", would we? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A tough one. Though there are 4 refs, on is craigs list and one is the police report (ie not an article to show notability, a listing which includes all crime and all crime is not notable). But 2 is multiple. Still, both are immediate news reports and thus I judge this is outside the intent of WP:NOTE.Obina 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Katherine Ann Olson. Wikipedia has a lot of articles about all kinds of murders, however, these are not listed under nicknames such as "Craigslist Killing" but under the name of the victim. Canjth 13:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm agreeable to that. --160.126.10.167 20:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not agreeable to this action and not agreeable to anonymous IPs wreaking their own havoc. .:DavuMaya:. 21:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Article suitable for Wikinews, not Wikipedia -- WP:NOT#INFO. Protecting private individuals from harm Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm and Wikipedia:Content_forking Summary blurb already contained in Craigslist article no need to expound. I know for sure this article will hurt the family for a long time..:DavuMaya:. 21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge with Craigslist and expand upon its entry there.-- I'm going back to my original stance on KEEP, see above, as well as my comments further down.24.170.224.21 03:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first instance using listings on craigslist as a method for commiting murder so its a notable event--Shimonnyman 08:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event, WP:NOT a tabloid. Odedee 08:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be here as a warning/lesson. As a relative of Katherine, I say leave it here. Maybe merge it into Craigslist like mentioned above. --User:egawtry 12:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep keep per Shimonnyman and egawtry 203.221.239.39 05:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was posted on the Talk page of the article in question, but I feel it should be posted here as well. "AND if you looked into craigslist they have already shot down several attempts at modifying their article to include this event." I looked, and I couldn't find a single thing. Please point these out to me. All I saw was the entry's creation and the section being renamed. Why is this article notable? It is notable because it is a lesson on human nature. It shows how trusting people can be, and how others can abuse that trust. I recommend reading http://www.startribune.com/563/story/1525735.html it's a good read. Also, I've only seen one article on a similar event, and I feel it's worth mentioning: http://www.kxmc.com/News/179773.asp Before Katherine was murdered, had you heard of Craigslist being used for this sort of thing? Can you honestly say that this is not a notable event, and should be removed? --24.170.224.21 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NOT#NEWS "News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." There are a substantial number of sources regarding this event. --24.170.224.21 09:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PeaceNT 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik lindhart

Speedy deleted twice, putting it to AfD. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not assert notability; no references. I'd hate to use the Google test, but anyways: [16]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Using TW to request speedy deletion again.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the future holds for him is Speedy Delete. JuJube 00:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite a speedy under WP:CSD#A7, but clearly does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:BIO. -- Satori Son 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:King of Hearts. Can be recreated if in fact he becomes prominent. Hal peridol 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Satori Son – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - no need to allow this to continue to snowball. Tijuana Brass 02:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Product News - Business to Business

This seems to be a start at creating a directory for B2B product news. Not a good encyclopedia topic - Wikipedia is not a directory. Other considerations are that it's been an orphan for a year and it would require extensive Wikification. Busy Stubber 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN subset of news (arguably actually public relations or marketing) and a loose collection of external links. --Dhartung | Talk 00:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads muchly like original research. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V. -- Satori Son 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT et al. --AliceJMarkham 02:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, borderline spam. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Bigvinu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.156.143 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR/spammish. Doczilla 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR with a hint of spam in the air. I suspect thus actually exists more as a place to park some commercial external links than as a genuine attempt at an article, not that it matters much given its quality. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm calling WP:SNOW here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - /me sees lots of WP:SNOW here. Resurgent insurgent 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert (character)

AfDs for this article:

This article has been nominated two times so far. However, I firmly believe that it should be deleted. The articles basically talks about how the Comedian acts while he is on stage. Should that belong here in Wikipedia. The simple answer: NO!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 November 2007

Colbert the fictional character, right? So WP:FICT applies here. And as far as I can tell, it passes all the qualifications with flying colors. Keep. —Quasirandom 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. Colbert's stage persona is a distinct entity from Colbert himself. See Creed Bratton (The Office)—a fictionalized version of the real Creed Bratton. —dustmite 02:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom 01:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, I don't exactly like how this article has been nominated for deletion 3 times in the past 5 months, as it feels like a failure to respect consensus. Still, I won't make an issue out of it, as there are always situations where such action is warranted. That being said, the Stephen Colbert's persona on The Colbert Report has received significant coverage in the media, especially recently thanks to Stephen Colbert "running" for President, and therefore the character is easily notable enough to have his own article. This isn't like writing an article about how Richard Pryor's stage performances are different from his real life or even how Jon Stewart on The Daily Show is different from Jon Stewart in real life. In those instances, the comedian is simply being himself, not some "character." With Colbert, though, it's like how Jerry Seinfeld is different from Jerry Seinfeld (character) or how Adam West is not the same as Adam West (character). --Hnsampat 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hnsampat. With the presidential campaign, there's no way Colbert isn't notable as both himself an a character. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While I didn't necessarily agree with the previous two nominations for deletion, they did have a fair point in that, at the time, the article was essentially a collection of punchlines from the show and in serious need of cleanup. Well, it has received that and it is continually being worked on, so that's no longer an issue in terms of deletion. With regard to your argument, as most of the others have pointed out already, "Stephen" is a legitimate character in his own right, with a fictionalised history, personality, set of beliefs and so on. He is not comparable to, say, the on-stage persona of Jon Stewart, who's essentially playing himself. Shoemoney2night 03:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant independent sources show notability of character. Hal peridol 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons expressed adequately above. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is very notable. Keeping the character's fictional bio separate from the real Colbert's article will reduce confusion. Doczilla 03:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No valid reason for deletion given. DCEdwards1966 03:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- True. Not only is no clear reason for deletion given, but the information stated is inaccurate. Doczilla 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia certainly accepts a fictional character as a possible topic for an article, and considering Colbert's popularity, I find it hard to argue against it. TSO1D 04:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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